| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LANCE DAVID BROOKS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * |
*
*
* * * * * * * |
ORDER IMPOSING FINE DOCKET NO. CF-11-7790-S |
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the Banking Commissioner (“Commissioner”) is charged with the administration of Chapter 672a of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (“Act”), and Sections 36b-31-2 to 36b-31-33, inclusive, of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (“Regulations”) promulgated under the Act;
WHEREAS, the Commissioner, through the Securities and Business Investments Division of the Department of Banking (“Department”), conducted an investigation into the activities of Lance David Brooks (“Respondent”), pursuant to Section 36b-26(a) of the Act, to determine if Respondent had violated, was violating or was about to violate provisions of the Act or Regulations (“Investigation”);
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2011, based on the Investigation, the Commissioner, acting pursuant to Section 36b-27(a) of the Act and Section 36b-27(d) of the Act, issued an Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”), Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing against Respondent (collectively “Notice”), which Notice is incorporated by reference herein;
WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that Respondent offered and sold securities to at least one Connecticut investor, which securities were not registered in Connecticut under the Act nor the subject of an exemptive claim or claim of covered security status. The offer and sale of such securities absent registration constitutes a violation of Section 36b-16 of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the Act, and for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the Act;
WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that the conduct of Respondent constitutes, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly, employing a device, scheme or artifice to defraud, making an untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or engaging in an act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 36b-4(a) of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the Act, and for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the Act;
WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that the conduct of Respondent constitutes, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly, engaging in dishonest or unethical practices. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 36b-4(b) of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the Act, and for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the Act;
WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that Respondent transacted business as an agent of issuer of CherryHomes Joint Venture, Air-Byrd/River Joint Venture and Regal Royalty Resource absent registration. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 36b-6(a) of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the Act, and for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the Act;
WHEREAS, the Notice stated, inter alia, that the Commissioner intended to impose a fine against Respondent, that Respondent would be afforded an opportunity for a hearing on the allegations set forth in the Notice if a written request for a hearing was received by the Department within fourteen (14) days following Respondent’s receipt of the Notice, and that the Commissioner may order that the maximum fine be imposed upon Respondent if Respondent failed to request a hearing within the prescribed time period or failed to appear at any such hearing;
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2011, the Notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent;
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2011, and April 7, 2011, the Notice was returned to the Department of Banking marked “Returned To Sender – Unclaimed” and “Returned To Sender – Unclaimed”, respectively;
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2011, the Notice was served on the Commissioner, and on April 5, 2011, in accordance with 36b-33(h) of the Act, Notice of Service on the Banking Commissioner In the Matter of: Lance David Brooks dated April 4, 2011 (“Notice of Service”), was sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent;
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2011, A [sic] copy of the Notice of Service was sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent at 10695 Wild Rose Court, McKinney, Texas 75070;
WHEREAS, Respondent has failed to request a hearing on the matters set forth in the Notice within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Service;
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2011, a Certification was issued rendering the Order permanent as of April 19, 2011, which Certification is incorporated by reference herein;
WHEREAS, Section 36a-1-31(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides, in pertinent part, that:
When a party fails to request a hearing within the time specified in the notice, the allegations against the party may be deemed admitted. Without further proceedings or notice to the party, the commissioner shall issue a final decision in accordance with section 4-180 of the Connecticut General Statutes and section 36a-1-52 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, provided the commissioner may, if deemed necessary, receive evidence from the department, as part of the record, concerning the appropriateness of the amount of any . . . fine . . . sought in the notice.
WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(a) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he commissioner may from time to time make . . . such . . . orders as are necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 36b-2 to 36b-34, inclusive”;
AND WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(b) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o . . . order may be made . . . unless the commissioner finds that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of sections 36b-2 to 36b-34, inclusive.”
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
| 1. | The Commissioner finds that the facts as set forth in paragraphs 6 through 36, inclusive, of the Notice, shall constitute findings of fact within the meaning of Section 4-180(c) of the General Statutes of Connecticut and Section 36a-1-52 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, and that the Statutory Basis for Order to Cease and Desist and Order Imposing Fine Against Respondent set forth in paragraphs 37 through 52, inclusive, of the Notice shall constitute conclusions of law within the meaning of Section 4-180(c) of the General Statutes of Connecticut and Section 36a-1-52 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. |
| 2. | The Commissioner finds that Respondent committed one violation of Section 36b-16 of the Act, one violation of Section 36b-4(a) of the Act, one violation of Section 36b-4(b) of the Act, and one violation of Section 36b-6(b) [sic] of the Act. |
| 3. | The Commissioner finds that the facts require the imposition of a fine against Respondent. |
| 4. |
The Commissioner complied with Section 36b-27 of the Act and Section 4-177 of the General Statutes of Connecticut. |
| 5. | The Commissioner finds that the imposition of a fine against Respondent is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of Sections 36b-2 to 36b-34, inclusive, of the Act. |
III. ORDER
Having read the record, I hereby ORDER, pursuant to Section 36b-27(d) of the Act, that:
| 1. | A fine of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) be imposed against Lance David Brooks to be remitted to the Department by cashier’s check, certified check or money order, made payable to “Treasurer, State of Connecticut”, no later than forty-five (45) days from the date the Order Imposing Fine is mailed; and |
| 2. |
This Order Imposing Fine shall become final when mailed. |
| Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, | ______/s/__________ | |
| this 26th day of August 2011. | Howard F. Pitkin | |
| Banking Commissioner |
This Order was sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to
Respondent on August 30, 2011.
Lance David Brooks
10695 Wild Rose Court
McKinney, TX 75070
Certified mail no. 7010 1870 0001 3619 4813
Lance David Brooks
P.O. Box 263
Prosper, TX 75078-0263
Certified mail no. 7010 1870 0001 3619 4820