---

On December 19, 2013, the Commissioner decided not to issue a declaratory ruling in response to a petition for a declaratory ruling filed on November 12, 2013, by Paul V. Carty, Esq., on behalf of Sameer Qadri (“Petition”), in connection with the Commissioner’s May 2, 2013, Order to Cease and Desist and Order Imposing Civil Penalty issued against Sameer Qadri d/b/a Accredited Law Group (“Final Order”) and an Order to Make Restitution which became final on February 23, 2013 (“Order to Make Restitution”).  The Petition had requested that the Commissioner (1) vacate the Department’s orders directed toward Mr. Qadri on the basis of the Department’s lack of jurisdiction over him because of failure of required notice, (2) vacate the civil penalty imposed upon him as unjust, inequitable and/or excessive, and because of the failure of notice to the petitioner, and (3) grant such other relief as may be deemed appropriate.  A declaratory ruling was not issued because the Petition did not seek a ruling as to the validity of any regulation or the applicability to specified circumstances of a provision of the general statutes, a regulation or final decision on a matter within the jurisdiction of the agency, and the Petition appeared to constitute an impermissible second request for reconsideration of the Final Order and Order to Make Restitution issued against Mr. Qadri.

On December 23, 2013, pursuant to Section 36a-412 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Commissioner approved the merger of The Northern Trust Company of Connecticut, a Connecticut chartered bank and trust company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, with and into Northern Trust Investments, Inc., an Illinois state bank headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

On December 16, 2013, the Commissioner issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, Order to Make Restitution (“Order to Make Restitution”), Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing (collectively “Notice”) in the Matter of:  Consumer Relief Programs, Inc. a/k/a Consumer Relief Programs Inc d/b/a Consumer Advocacy Assistance (“Respondent”), Irvine and Laguna Hills, California.  The Notice was the result of an investigation by the Consumer Credit Division.  The Notice alleges that Respondent engaged in debt negotiation in this state without obtaining the required license, in violation of Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  As part of the Order to Make Restitution, Respondent were ordered to repay fees to identified Connecticut residents in amounts identified plus interest, and to repay any other Connecticut resident who entered into an agreement for debt negotiation services with Respondent on and after October 1, 2009, any fees paid by such Connecticut resident to Respondent plus interest.  The Commissioner also found that public welfare required the issuance of a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist against Respondent.  Respondent was afforded an opportunity to request a hearing with regard to the allegations set forth in the Notice.

On December 17, 2013, the Commissioner issued an Order to Cease and Desist and Order Imposing Civil Penalty (“Order”) In the Matter of:  Network Solutions Center Inc. d/b/a Premiere Financial Center Inc. (“Respondent”), Santa Ana, California.  The basis of the Order was that Respondent engaged in debt negotiation in this state without obtaining the required license, in violation of Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  Respondent was ordered to cease and desist from violating Section 36a 671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes and to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000.  In addition, an Order of Restitution previously issued against the Respondent on November 12, 2013, remains in effect and became permanent on December 1, 2013.

On December 17, 2013, the Commissioner issued an Order to Cease and Desist and Order Imposing Civil Penalty (“Order”) In the Matter of:  Silver Law Center Inc (“Respondent”), Newport Beach, California.  The basis of the Order was that Respondent engaged in debt negotiation in this state without obtaining the required license, in violation of Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.  Respondent was ordered to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes and to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000.  In addition, an Order of Restitution previously issued against the Respondent on November 20, 2013, remains in effect and became permanent on December 17, 2013.

On December 17, 2013, the Commissioner issued an Order to Cease and Desist and Order Imposing Civil Penalty (“Order”) In the Matter of: Integrity Modification Co. d/b/a Integrity Mortgage Modification (“Integrity”), Plaistow, New Hampshire, and Barry C. Vigoda (“Vigoda”) (collectively, “Respondents”).  The basis of the Order was that Respondents engaged in debt negotiation in this state without the required license, in violation of Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes in effect prior to October 1, 2011, and Integrity offered to engage in debt negotiation in this state without the required license in violation of Section 36a-671(b) in effect prior to October 1, 2011.  Respondents were ordered to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes in effect prior to October 1, 2011, and each Respondent was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000.

On December 18, 2013, the Commissioner entered into a Consent Order with James F. Barker; Independent Rescore Systems, Inc.; Deleting Your Debts Company, Inc. a/k/a Deleting Your Debts, Inc.; and Intake Application Center, Inc. a/k/a Intake Application, Inc. (“Respondents”), California.  The Consent Order was based on an investigation by the Consumer Credit Division.  As a result of such investigation, on July 2, 2013, the Commissioner issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, Order to Make Restitution, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing against Respondents.  The Commissioner alleged that Respondents engaged or offered to engage in debt negotiation in this state without obtaining the required  license, in violation of Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes in effect prior to October 1, 2011.  As part of the Consent Order, Respondents agreed to cease and desist from engaging or offering to engage in debt negotiation in this state without the required license, in violation of Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, and to repay all fees paid to Respondents by Connecticut residents for debt negotiation services.