North Atlantic Securities, LLC v. Office of Securities, 92 A.3d 335

North Atlantic Securities, LLC and related entities, along with Dell’Olio, had licenses revoked by the Maine Securities Administrator for improper transactions with Dell’Olio’s elderly mother-in-law who was a client.
From 2006 and 2008, Dell’Olio and entities obtained over $200,000 in loans from his mother-in-law, with most funds not repaid; some funds were used to seed business transactions and cover personal obligations.
Written supervisory procedures at North Atlantic prohibited lending to or borrowing from clients, with a family-member exception not applicable at relevant times; forged signatures were involved in some loan documents.
In 2008 additional loans were arranged via a Pershing non-purpose loan account secured by the mother-in-law’s securities; funds were transferred to entities and used for firm expenses and to cover personal margin calls.
The Administrator issued a notice of intent to revoke licenses in 2011; a two-day hearing occurred in 2011; the Administrator issued a decision revoking licenses in 2012.
On appeal, the Maine Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, concluding the record supported the violations, the process was not biased, and revocation was appropriate, though the concurrence urged post-decision sanction briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the 2006 transaction time-barred?	Dell’Olio contends the 2006 allegations were time-barred by § 16412(9).	Office asserts knowledge accrued in later investigation, within one year of notice, so not time-barred.	Not time-barred; the record shows actual knowledge arose later and within the one-year limit.
Do the administrative findings have substantial evidentiary support?	Disputes that the 2006/2008 transactions were loans and that procedures permitted family loans.	Record shows forged signatures and misapplied loan proceeds; procedures and FINRA rules support findings.	Yes; findings are supported by substantial evidence and are upheld.
Was there structural or actual bias in the proceedings?	Notice of potential penalties created impermissible predisposition; potential bias in adjudication.	No due process violation; notice and hearings complied with statutory requirements; no actual bias proven.	No structural or actual bias; due process satisfied.
Was the penalty of license revocation proper under the public-interest standard?	Office urged revocation given multiple violations and falsifications.	Respondents argued for lesser sanctions and argued procedural timing concerns on sanctions.	No abuse of discretion; revocation upheld given egregious misconduct and lack of credible reforms.

Michalowski v. Bd. of Licensure in Medicine, 2012 ME 134 (Me. 2012) (de novo statutory interpretation; standards for administrative decisions)
Dyer v. Superintendent of Ins., 2013 ME 61 (Me. 2013) (deferral to agency findings; substantial evidence standard)
Zablotny v. State Bd. of Nursing, 2014 ME 46 (Me. 2014) (timing and procedure in disciplinary proceedings)
Lippitt v. Bd. of Certification of Geologists and Soil Scientists, 2014 ME 42 (Me. 2014) (combined proceedings and sanctions in licensing cases)
Me. Real Estate Comm’n v. Jones, 670 A.2d 1385 (Me. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard in agency sanctions)
Copp v. Liberty, 2008 ME 97 (Me. 2008) (credibility and factual findings; agency decision review)
Kirkpatrick v. City of Bangor, 1999 ME 73 (Me. 1999) (meaningful opportunity to be heard on sanctions; due process in licensing)