Skip to content

Archives

Heritage trust company


heritage trust company

Asset class: International Equity. Objective: Seeks capital appreciation by investing in developed and emerging markets. MFS® Heritage Trust Company. Discover where Heritage Trust Company are ranked in the High Net Worth legal rankings. Visit Chambers and Partners to learn more. ("MHTC" or "Trustee"), both in its individual corporate capacity and as trustee of the MFS. Heritage Trust Company Collective Investment.
heritage trust company
heritage trust company

watch the video

Heritage Trust Company

Heritage trust company -

Get 3% Cash Back on All Your Holiday Purchases!

We want to help you make the holiday season a little easier by offering you 3% cash back on all purchases with our Cash Reward Mastercard! 3% cash back on electronics, travel, dining and anything else you need to make this season one to remember.

Start earning 3% Cash Back now

Mortgage rates are now at an all-time low. With rates as low as % APR and NO closing costs*, you can lower your monthly payment and pay off your home sooner. Apply now and see how much interest you can save.

Learn More!

Our Grand Illumination invites the community back to our campus all season long. Stroll our campus, enjoy the lights and decorations and take family photos from November 28th until New Years.

Learn more about Grand Illumination

Meet VANA (Video Advisor Network Associates), our Video Advisor service that provides members with a virtual face-to-face experience. This new service uses face-to-face video technology to connect members with one of American Heritage’s VANA representatives.

Learn more about Video Advisor!

 

Helping you Plan for Life Stages

Convenient Products & Services For You & Your Family

Welcome Viriva Members!

We are excited to welcome over 8, Viriva Community Credit Union members to our family. Viriva members overwhelmingly voted to merge with American Heritage. Click the button below to learn more about the merger and important information about your new accounts and services.

Learn More about the Viriva Merger

Our New Warminster Branch is Now Open!

The Warminster branch will extend American Heritage’s presence and convenience in the Bucks County region. Learn more about this location, services offered, hours of operation, contact information and more here!

Learn More about our Warminster Branch

Mortgage and Realty Offers for First-Time homebuyers!

First-time American Heritage homebuyers receive up to $ mortgage closing cost credit, and a $ gift from American Heritage Realty!

Get Started

We are on a mission to strengthen our communities. Learn how we work with partners such as CHOP to make a positive, lasting impact on the people and organizations in our neighborhoods. Join us on that mission!

Join the Cause

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Causeway Coast & Glens Heritage Trust Announce Free Online Webinars For Local Creatives In Brand Storytelling & Social Media Marketing

Causeway Coast & Glens Heritage Trust, in partnership with Ulster University, are delivering two free marketing and social media training sessions to local creatives, storytellers, and artisans next week as part of the EU funded Northword project.

Led by trainer and founder of Excalibur Press, Tina Calder the virtual training begins on Monday December 6 with the Supercharge Your Marketing By Creating Your Brand Story and will be followed by Everything You Need To Know About Social Media For Marketing Your Business on Thursday December 9 where Tina will guide attendees through all of the keyinfrastructures that make up their brand such as brand story, brand mission and brand social media content style.

Tiérna Mullan, the CCGHTProject Officer said: “The pandemic has highlighted the importance of digital platforms in supporting the creative industry, and the Northword project aims to further harness this potential.

“The wealth of creative talent in the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid & East Antrim Borough Council areas is phenomenal and through the two online training sessions we can support the creative industries in remote areas and enhance their online presence.” 

Trainer Tina Calder has acquired a wealth of knowledge in 25 years working in local media having worked with a large number of thought leaders and business owners. Tina specialises in helping businesses transform and level up their marketing and communications efforts.

“I&#;m delighted to be working with Causeway Coast & Glens Heritage Trust on this fantastic project to be able to support business in the creative sector in areas of their marketing such as brand storytelling and social media marketing” said Tina, adding: “Programmes like this that offer free training are absolutely vital in supporting our vibrant and exciting small businesses within the creative sector.”

CCGHT is a registered charity devoted to protecting and enhancing the unique heritage of the Causeway Coast and Glens area, and in collaboration with Ulster University, they are the lead facilitators of the Northword project in Northern Ireland.

Northword is a transnational project that seeks to use traditional storytelling to support creative industries in northern countriesin remote areas and enhance the online presence of small businesses. 

It also seeks to draw on and support long traditions of storytelling in northern locales and encourage communities to rediscover and celebrate local tales.

Both training sessions will be recorded and will include an interactive element such as a Q&A session and participant handouts.

To register for the events, go to mynewextsetup.us

Sign up to the Northword e-newsletter to keep up to date with progress and upcoming events Sign up for the Northword e-newsletter! &#; Northword NI

For more information on the Northword project visit mynewextsetup.us or mynewextsetup.us

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Equiom, a trust and corporate services provider, has acquired independent Asian corporate services provider Heritage Trust Group.

Heritage offers trust, foundation, fiduciary, corporate as well as accounting services from its offices in Singapore, Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands (BVI). The firm will be renamed as Equiom in January , while its Hong Kong team will relocate to Equiom's established offices.

As part of the deal, 60 employees, including Heritage’s senior management team, will be integrated into Equiom with immediate effect.  

Heritage CEO Angelo Venardos termed the acquisition as a “positive move” for the firm and ensured that its clients will “continue to receive the service they deserve, in addition to benefitting from the breadth of services and skills available through the wider Equiom Group”.

Equiom global CEO Sheila Dean said: "The acquisition of Heritage Trust Group expands Equiom's jurisdictional reach into the new areas of Singapore and BVI while expanding our current team in Hong Kong.”

“Equiom's growth strategy continues to concentrate on achieving scale and substance throughout every jurisdiction we operate in. I'm pleased to welcome Angelo and his team to Equiom &#; they echo Equiom's philosophy of building long-standing relationships with clients and very much mirror our client services ethos. For Equiom clients this provides further access to international services and expertise.”

The latest deal follows Equiom's partnership last month with Links Group, a provider of commercial facilitation and advisory services in the UAE and Qatar.  

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

MFS Heritage Trust Company CIT - International Growth Fund II Class 02 Fund

Treynor Ratio 5 Years Trailing Return YTD - Year to Date Trailing Return YTD - Year to Date Trailing Return YTD - Year to Date Beta 5 Years Sortino Ratio 3 Years Sortino Ratio 5 Years Information Ratio 5 Years Alpha 3 Years Capture Ratio Up 3 Years Information Ratio 1 Year Maximum Loss 3 Years Trailing Return 8 Years Average Gain 5 Years Tracking Error 1 Year Capture Ratio Down 1 Year Sortino Ratio 3 Years Correlation 5 Years Information Ratio 5 Years Tracking Error 5 Years R-Squared (R&#;) 1 Year Capture Ratio Up 1 Year Treynor Ratio 1 Year Risk adjusted Return Since Inception Low 1 Year Trailing Return 3 Years Trailing Performance 3 Years Trailing Return 7 Years Trailing Return 2 Months Trailing Return 3 Years Information Ratio 5 Years R-Squared (R&#;) 5 Years Average Loss 5 Years Trailing Return 5 Years Average Loss 5 Years High 1 Year Capture Ratio Down 5 Years Trailing Return 9 Years Capture Ratio Down 1 Year Trailing Return 1 Year Batting Average 3 Years High 1 Year High 1 Year Alpha 5 Years Trailing Return 9 Months Sortino Ratio 1 Year Trailing Return 4 Years Treynor Ratio 3 Years Capture Ratio Down 5 Years Average Gain 1 Year Average Gain 5 Years Trailing Return 2 Months Performance since Inception Information Ratio 3 Years Capture Ratio Down 3 Years Risk adjusted Return 3 Years Average Loss 1 Year Capture Ratio Up 1 Year Average Gain 3 Years Trailing Return 6 Months Maximum Loss 1 Year R-Squared (R&#;) 3 Years Beta 1 Year Information Ratio 3 Years Trailing Return 6 Years Trailing Performance 1 Year Treynor Ratio 1 Year Trailing Performance 4 Years Alpha 1 Year Trailing Return 3 Months Beta 1 Year Average Loss 1 Year Correlation 5 Years Trailing Return 7 Years Information Ratio 1 Year Alpha 5 Years Trailing Return 1 Year Average Gain 5 Years Average Loss 1 Year Performance Current Year Trailing Return 5 Years Batting Average 3 Years Trailing Return 4 Years Trailing Return 6 Months Trailing Return Since Inception Trailing Return 1 Month Trailing Return 2 Years Risk adjusted Return Since Inception Sortino Ratio 5 Years Tracking Error 1 Year Trailing Performance 1 Week Trailing Return 6 Months Risk adjusted Return 3 Years Capture Ratio Up 5 Years Alpha 3 Years Capture Ratio Up 1 Year R-Squared (R&#;) 1 Year Trailing Return Since Inception Capture Ratio Down 3 Years Correlation 1 Year Maximum Loss 5 Years Correlation 5 Years Trailing Return 5 Years Treynor Ratio 3 Years Beta 3 Years Correlation 3 Years Low 1 Year Trailing Return 9 Years Risk adjusted Return 3 Years Tracking Error 3 Years Average Gain 1 Year Trailing Return 3 Months Trailing Return 9 Months Tracking Error 5 Years Correlation 1 Year Correlation 3 Years Beta 5 Years Risk adjusted Return 5 Years Maximum Loss 1 Year Alpha 5 Years Trailing Return 7 Years Tracking Error 3 Years Sortino Ratio 1 Year Beta 3 Years Maximum Loss 3 Years Risk adjusted Return Since Inception Average Gain 3 Years Trailing Return 4 Years Average Gain 1 Year Information Ratio 1 Year Correlation 1 Year R-Squared (R&#;) 3 Years Trailing Return 2 Months Batting Average 5 Years Treynor Ratio 1 Year Capture Ratio Up 5 Years R-Squared (R&#;) 5 Years Trailing Performance 6 Months Treynor Ratio 5 Years Capture Ratio Up 5 Years Capture Ratio Down 3 Years Sortino Ratio 3 Years Capture Ratio Up 3 Years Trailing Return Since Inception Batting Average 1 Year Trailing Return 6 Years Sortino Ratio 5 Years Capture Ratio Up 3 Years Low 1 Year Risk adjusted Return 5 Years Trailing Return 3 Months Beta 5 Years Trailing Return 9 Years R-Squared (R&#;) 1 Year Average Gain 3 Years Batting Average 3 Years R-Squared (R&#;) 5 Years Maximum Loss 5 Years Tracking Error 5 Years Maximum Loss 3 Years Trailing Return 1 Year Trailing Return 1 Month Correlation 3 Years Trailing Return 1 Month Alpha 1 Year Trailing Return 6 Years Batting Average 5 Years Batting Average 5 Years Information Ratio 3 Years Capture Ratio Down 1 Year Batting Average 1 Year Trailing Performance 3 Months Maximum Loss 5 Years R-Squared (R&#;) 3 Years Average Loss 3 Years Trailing Return 2 Years Trailing Return 8 Years Beta 1 Year Tracking Error 3 Years Trailing Performance 2 Years Maximum Loss 1 Year Average Loss 5 Years Tracking Error 1 Year Trailing Return 8 Years Average Loss 3 Years Capture Ratio Down 5 Years Trailing Return 9 Months Trailing Return 2 Years Trailing Return 3 Years Treynor Ratio 5 Years Alpha 3 Years Trailing Performance 5 Years Average Loss 3 Years Trailing Performance 1 Month Sortino Ratio 1 Year Batting Average 1 Year Treynor Ratio 3 Years Alpha 1 Year Beta 3 Years Risk adjusted Return 5 Years
Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Glacier Bank Division Information

Glacier Bank is owned by Glacier Bancorp, Inc. (GBCI), a publicly traded regional bank holding company headquartered in Kalispell, Montana.

Glacier proudly operates individual bank divisions that provide financial services to individuals and businesses throughout the western U.S. Our entire family of banks is available to you whenever and wherever you need us.


The list below provides links to the websites of all Glacier bank divisions.

Valley Bank of Helena

Serving Helena Valley and Surrounding Areas

First Bank of Montana

Serving Central and North Central Montana

First Security Bank

Serving Bozeman, Gallatin County and Surrounding Areas

Serving Throughout Idaho and Washington


Citizens Community Bank

Serving Southeast Idaho

North Cascades Bank

Serving North Central Washington

First Bank of Wyoming

Serving Western Wyoming


First State Bank of Wyoming

Serving Southeastern Wyoming


Bank of the San Juans

Serving Western and Southern Colorado


Foothills Bank

Serving Throughout Arizona

First Community Bank Utah

First Community Bank Utah

Serving Northern Utah

Heritage Bank Logo

Heritage Bank of Nevada

Serving Northern Nevada

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM'N v. Heritage Trust Co., F. Supp. (D. Ariz. )

F. Supp. ()

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
HERITAGE TRUST COMPANY et al., Defendants.

No. Civ. Phx. WPC.

United States District Court, D. Arizona.

July 1,

On Motion for Clarification August 27,

* David S. Shughart, II, Atty., U.S. S.E.C., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

Jack Cavness, of Cavness & DeRose, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants.

 
OPINION AND ORDER

COPPLE, District Judge.

On July 29, , plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violation of Securities laws by defendants and requesting injunctive relief. On October 8, , the parties stipulated to an order of permanent injunction which was signed by the Court. By the terms of the injunction defendants were prohibited inter alia from selling or offering to sell nonregistered securities including, specifically, their "revocable inter vivos trusts", unless exempt from the provisions of Section 5 of the Securities Act of , 15 U.S.C. § 77e. The stipulation and order also appointed Special Counsel to investigate the practices of defendants and report to the Court. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order.

The parties have conceded and the Court finds personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.

On April 18, , plaintiff filed a petition for appointment of a receiver alleging that the defendants Bromley and Heritage were wasting and dissipating trust assets, violating fiduciary duties and that said defendants had, since October 8, , and in violation of the injunctive order offered and sold unregistered preferred stock of defendant corporation. At the hearing on the order to show cause evidence by stipulation of facts, and oral and documentary evidence was presented on these issues. In addition it was established that subsequent to the above order defendants Bromley and Heritage had continued unabated in the interstate sale of corporate notes and inter vivos trusts by use of the mails. The parties were directed to and have briefed these latter two alleged violations. Inasmuch as evidence was introduced by both sides on each of these possible violations and fully briefed, the Court will consider these possible violations as though originally alleged in plaintiff's petition.

There appearing to be no substantial issue as to any material fact, the legal issues determinative of decision are whether any or all of the three types of sales are exempt from registration requirements of law, and if not, then what relief is appropriate. The government urges that these are all securities and there is no statutory exemption available as to any of the three categories and, further, that the sales were fraudulently induced and, since the mails were used, illegal in any event. Defendants claim all sales were exempt from SEC registration, that no fraud was involved, and if * any such is found adversely to defendants a receivership is not justified in fact or law.

 
THE PLAN

In the late sixties and early seventies promoters began securing large blocks of undeveloped Arizona land at low prices. The land was then subdivided and sold nationwide at high per-lot prices. The sale was usually with a 10% down payment and a note and mortgage back. These notes were then sold nationwide to unsophisticated buyers through local sales groups. As various courts determined them to be non-exempt securities, e. g., Hall v. Security Planning Service, Inc.,  F. Supp. 7 (mynewextsetup.us ); SEC v. Thunderbird Valley, Inc.,  F. Supp. (D.S.D); SEC v. Dell Investment Co., No. L (D. Neb); SEC v. Lake Havasu Estates,  F. Supp. (mynewextsetup.us); SEC v. Ford, No. (mynewextsetup.us), this source of funds dried up.

Mr. Bromley, a man with considerable background in trusts, securities and banking, established his trust company. He carefully drew the trust agreements (Revocable Inter Vivos Trusts) to eliminate any standard for investment as trustee of these trusts. As defense counsel contends in defendants' post-trial memorandum:

 
"Here again, as the Court has pointed out, the investment powers clause of the instrument is broadly worded and removes the generally applicable limits on investments by the trustee. By its terms, the clause gives the trustee absolute discretion irrespective of any rule of law controlling fiduciary investments." (emphasis in original)

With this instrument Mr. Bromley began a nationwide sales promotion to sell these revocable inter vivos trusts to the same general market with a rate of return "assured" (Exhibit ). There is some evidence (e. g., the New Mexico cease and desist order in evidence) that earlier versions of the trust form, sales materials or advertising may have "guaranteed" a rate of return.

Defendants then invested these trust funds in some of the same Arizona land company notes and mortgages which those companies had been enjoined from selling directly (thus enabling them to do indirectly what they had been enjoined from doing directly), without regard to the land companies' cost or the true value of the underlying security. Defendants later invested substantial sums of trust funds in second mortgages, again without due regard to their true underlying security-value to the trusts involved. (See the various reports of Special Counsel re: the Texas wrap-arounds, filed with the Court.)

On all of these investments the defendant corporation received a 20% "fee" for such investment. From the testimony and the stipulated facts the Court concludes that this fee is either a finder's fee paid to defendants to induce investment of trust funds (resulting in a clear conflict with the interests of the trustors), or a discounted purchase with the discount taken by the defendant instead of the particular trust to which it should belong. (See Interim Report of Special Counsel.)

Other trust funds have been invested in a Mexican project solely on the security of unsecured promissory notes of Mexican citizens again for a 20% "fee". Some trust funds have been invested in corporate entities in which Bromley himself had a financial or other interest.

When investments have become in default, defendants have always determined to not foreclose on the security and have used income from other trusts, other trustor investments and corporate funds to continue making income payments to those trusts with defaulted investments to prevent their knowledge of the fact that their investment (trust fund) is in jeopardy. This practice certainly has overtones of a "Ponzi" scheme.

* Until ordered by this Court in the Interim Protective Order after the hearing herein, none of the above information, for obvious reasons, had ever been communicated to trustors or investors.

Later, as there was need for more capital to keep the ball rolling, unregistered corporate notes (variously called "guaranteed corporate notes" and "capital notes") were marketed interstate and to at least some unsophisticated and uninformed purchasers.

At least five states (see Stipulation of Facts) have entered uncontested cease and desist orders against Heritage which prohibit it from selling its "Revocable Inter Vivos Trusts" in said states, finding expressly or by necessary implication that they are "securities" under the applicable state law.

 
THE PREFERRED STOCK

The State Banking Department, which licenses and audits trust companies in Arizona, determined that Heritage's capital requirement was impaired. After entry of the October 8, order and to cure this situation a number of Arizona resident corporate noteholders were induced to exchange their capital notes for preferred stock, thus eliminating the capital inpairment by the exchange of creditor positions for equity positions. This exchange is arguably non-exempt. Cf. Chapman v. Dunn, F.2d (6th Cir. ); SEC v. McDonald Inv. Co.,  F. Supp. (mynewextsetup.us). However the government has not established fraud in this exchange none of these stockholders testified and the defendant Bromley testified that he acted on advice of counsel (no corroboration) that such exchange was exempt under state law. The Court cannot find on the evidence presented that this was a wilfull violation of the injunction nor that the exchange was induced by fraud.

 
CORPORATE NOTES

These notes, either by the literal definition test of Farrell v. United States, F.2d , (9th Cir. ), or the economic realities test of SEC v. Harvey,  U.S. , 66 S. Ct. , 90 L. Ed. (), and Los Angeles Trust Deed & Mortgage Exch. v. SEC, F.2d , (9th Cir. ), are securities. Counsel for defendants does not appear to seriously contend otherwise. Further, defendants have not carried their burden of proving any applicable exemption as to these notes or their sales, and the notes, having been offered and sold interstate, should have been registered with the SEC prior to offer or sale.[1] There is no credible evidence that defendants' counsel was even aware of these sales, much less that they were made pursuant to his advice. Their sale was a clear and wilfull violation of this Court's injunction which was entered on stipulation of counsel and the terms of which order were known and understood by defendant Bromley. There were at least 49 such sales totalling in excess of $, Counsel for defendants avow that such sales were discontinued prior to the hearing herein and will not be resumed. However, in view of defendants' past conduct there are reasonable grounds to infer that unless specifically enjoined defendants will resume such sales or some variation thereof with or without approval of counsel.

 
REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUSTS

The most troublesome problem is whether these trusts constituted securities. The evidence is clear that they were sold interstate by use of the mails and by either false or at least misleading statements and material omissions. The Court has neither found nor been cited to any case squarely in point other than the implications of the various state cease and desist orders. The government contends that these are in fact investment * contracts as defined by the Securities Act and therefore are securities subject to registration. Defendants contend that they are "innovative" trusts and not securities and are not subject to registration, citing Investment Co. Institute v. Camp,  U.S. , 91 S. Ct. , 28 L. Ed. 2d (): "In short, there is a plain difference between the sale of fiduciary services and the sale of investments." Id. at , 91 S. Ct. at The weakness in this argument is that by the nature of the investment powers granted by the "trust agreement" used here and the plain facts of the investment practices of defendants, true fiduciary services were neither sold nor furnished. They were treated by Bromley as investment contracts resulting in dangerous and highly speculative investment of trust funds placed where they would generate a high initial "fee" to be taken by defendants and with none of the usual and ordinary regard for safety of the funds entrusted to a trustee by a trustor.

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc., F.2d , (9th Cir. ), cert. denied U.S. , 94 S. Ct. , 38 L. Ed. 2d 53, the court stated:

 
"The and Acts are remedial legislation among the central purposes of which is full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of securities, SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., , U.S. , , 66 S. Ct. , 90 L. Ed. ; Tcherepnin v. Knight, , U.S. , , 88 S. Ct. , 19 L. Ed. 2d It is a familiar canon of legislative construction that remedial legislation should be construed broadly, Tcherepnin v. Knight, supra, U.S. at , 88 S. Ct. The Acts were designed to protect the American public from speculative or fraudulent schemes of promoters. For that reason Congress defined the term `security' broadly, and the Supreme Court in turn has construed the definition liberally. In SEC v. Joiner Corp., , U.S. , 64 S. Ct. , 88 L. Ed. 88, the Court stated: `However, the reach of the Act does not stop with the obvious and commonplace. Novel, uncommon, or irregular devices, whatever they appear to be, are also reached if it be proved as matter of fact that they were widely offered or dealt in under terms or courses of dealing which established their character in commerce as "investment contracts", or as "any interest or instrument commonly known as a `security'",' U.S., Id. at , 64 S. Ct. at In SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., supra, the Court stated that the definition of a security `embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.' U.S. Id. at , 66 S. Ct. at And in the recent case of Tcherepnin v. Knight, supra, the Court stated, `[I]n searching for the meaning and scope of the word "security" in the Act, form should be disregarded for substance and the emphasis should be on economic reality.' Id. at , 88 S. Ct. at "

As stated above the government claims and defendants deny that these trust agreements are "investment contracts". The Supreme Court first defined the term "investment contract" in Howey, wherein it said:

 
"[A]n investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party."

U.S. at , 66 S. Ct. at

What defendants offer clearly meets this three-part test. Certainly, there exists a "contract, transaction or scheme." Similarly, this scheme embodied a common enterprise, for any return to the investors and the success of the defendants depended upon the defendants' success * in inducing yet more people to invest their money in trusts or corporate notes and in finding high discount investments to insure the 20% "fee" to defendants. Cf. Los Angeles Trust Deed & Mortgage Exch. v. SEC, F.2d (9th Cir. ).[2]

Finally, profits are expected to result from the efforts of the defendants. The most essential consistency in the cases which have considered the meaning of the term "investment contract" is their emphasis on whether or not the investor has substantial power to affect the success of the enterprise. When the investor is relatively uninformed and then turns over hs money to others, essentially depending upon their representations and their honesty and skill in managing it, the transaction is generally considered to be an investment contract.

Defendants further claim that if these trusts are determined to be securities they are exempt by virtue of exemptions contained in the Securities Act of Contrary to the assertion of defense counsel, the facts in evidence establish that these trusts do not represent sale of "any interest or participation in a single or collective trust fund maintained by a bank" as those terms are used in 15 U.S.C. § 77c(a) (2), nor is Heritage a bank as the term is used therein. Capital Funds Inc. v. SEC, F.2d (8th Cir. ). Defendants' business is certainly not substantially confined to "banking".

If defendants are correct that the term "bank" as used above is to include a trust company as "Bank" is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 80a-2, defendants have not established that they are "exercising fiduciary powers similar to those permitted to national banks under the authority of the Comptroller of the Currency" and "which is not operated for the purpose of evading the provisions of this subchapter." On the facts in evidence the Court finds against the defendants on both issues.

It is apparent, in conclusion, that defendants' trust promotion and the form of trust agreement as devised, interpreted and administered by defendant Bromley contain the very evils which the Securities Acts are intended to suppress, and represent a novel scheme to seek the use of money of others on the promise of profit to them. Compliance by the defendants with the provisions of the Securities Acts would, in the opinion of the Court, mean the death of the enterprise, since the disclosure and anti-deception provisions of the statutes would be totally inimical to the trust investment practices of the defendants.

The Court has reviewed the recent Supreme Court decision in United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, U.S. , 95 S. Ct. , 44 L. Ed. 2d decided June 16, See slip opinion pages Although defendants' sales brochures placed some emphasis on avoidance of probate as one of the advantages of a trust, it is also clear that the prime inducement was investment expertise, safety, and assured substantial return. It is difficult to believe any trustor would have invested without anticipation of a safe investment and a profitable return. United Housing does not dictate a result different from that reached here. See footnotes 15 and 16 at page 13 of the slip opinion.

 
REMEDY

Counsel for defendant claims that because the facts are largely uncontested the real issue is the character of Mr. Bromley. The Court agrees that this is material on the issue of an appropriate remedy and comments as follows:

1. Mr. Bromley has had extensive prior experience in banking, securities and trusts. In he was censored and fined $ by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., for * mismanaging a fund wherein he was trustee.

2. In soliciting the witness Staib to become Heritage's director or manager of sales for trusts and notes in the state of Nebraska and elsewhere and to recruit salesmen for that purpose, Mr. Bromley represented that Heritage invested corporate and trust funds on a two-for-one collateral basis in short term commercial and industrial development loans. No evidence was introduced that Heritage ever made such investments all the evidence indicates that such loans were never made. Mr. Staib further testified that he was never advised by Bromley in questioning him about the SEC complaint herein that the complaint contained allegations of fraud nor of the October 8, injunctive order. He was also never advised of the nature of defendants' trust and corporate investments as detailed previously herein and as more specifically described in the stipulation of facts. It is also apparent that Mr. Staib is relatively inexperienced and is not knowledgeable in the field of securities or investments or trusts except that he determined not to sell these "trusts". He certainly was not an expert investment or trust counselor, as representatives of Heritage were claimed to be in the sales materials.

3. He has suffered a number of state cease and desist orders in regard to sale of these trusts but never sought advice of the SEC as to whether they would be considered "securities" under the federal Securities Acts.

4. Instead of advising trustors of defaults in their investments he has continued their income payments with corporate funds or funds belonging to other trusts in order to lull them into a sense of security. He also elected to not advise the trustors with defaulted investments of his policy of "no foreclosure of security" or even the fact of default.

5. He has failed to advise any trustor of the true nature of his investment.

6. He has failed to advise trustors of the 20% "fee" practice as detailed in the Stipulations of May 13, , and herein. The sales literature and the trust agreements are carefully worded to hide this practice.

7. While claiming to have acted on the advice of a long succession of attorneys, no opinion letters were introduced and no attorney testified to confirm such fact. The Court concludes that Mr. Bromley never got the oral opinions he wanted therefore the succession of counsel, lack of opinion letters and lack of corroborating testimony.

8. He has retained as a consultant and apparently (Stipulations) intends to appoint as an officer of the defendant corporation the president of three Arizona land companies which have been enjoined by SEC action and in which trustors' funds are invested. The defendant corporation has elected to loan corporate funds to these corporations to enable them to cure their defaults on trust investments.

9. Defendant has now (since the hearing herein) retained additional legal counsel for advice on legal and business decisions, who are also attorneys for the three above-mentioned land companies and their president. New counsel are now in the position of advising defendants as a direct creditor of these companies and as trustee of the trust funds invested in these three companies with regard to defendants' creditor and trustee decisions vis-a-vis these three companies, also their clients, as debtors in obvious financial trouble.

As noted above, in wilfull violation of the stipulated order of October 8, , without consulting the SEC further, without petitioning the Court and apparently without consulting his own counsel, Mr. Bromley continued unabated in the interstate sale of these non-exempt corporate notes and the trusts which were the subject matter of the complaint and injunction herein.

There remains, then, the question of the equitable relief to be fashioned. While the Court believes that by now trial counsel have impressed upon Mr. * Bromley the necessity for observing and complying with the orders of the Court, this is not sufficient, given Mr. Bromley's past conduct, to deny affirmative relief. Cf. Los Angeles Trust Deed & Mortgage Exch. v. SEC, supra, F.2d at There is also the fact, as the Court assumes, that counsel have advised defendants that a court is invested with certain powers to punish for wilfull violation of its lawful orders.

This Court has no power on the evidence now before it to appoint a receiver to liquidate the defendant corporation. Los Angeles Trust Deed & Mortgage Exch. v. SEC, supra. Obviously, the appointment of even a receiver to maintain the status quo until such time as the defendants can comply with the law or until dissatisfied trustors, creditors, or stockholders, if any there be, may take other action is a drastic step which ought not be lightly taken.

While its evidence raises suspicions, the government did not introduce evidence sufficient to establish that the defendant corporation is presently insolvent or has failed or is unable at this time to meet its obligations. The government has not convinced the Court that the appointment of a receiver as opposed to further injunctive relief, closely policed, is necessary at this time. Cf. SEC v. Turner, F. Supp. (D. Or). The injunctive relief provided below, absent a further showing, will be adequate to achieve the two purposes for which a conservator type of receiver is requested. Los Angeles Trust Deed & Mortgage Exch. v. SEC, supra.

It is ordered:

1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of a receiver is denied.

2. The Interim Protective Order and Injunction filed herein on May 23, , is quashed.

3. Until further order of this Court the defendants Bromley and Heritage Trust Company, and each of them, and their respective officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, be and they hereby are restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly:

 
(a) Selling or offering to sell unregistered corporate promissory notes of any kind, common or preferred stock, revocable inter vivos trusts or securities of any kind however denominated except upon proof of exemption from registration under federal Securities laws and approval of this Court after filing and service on plaintiff of an appropriate motion. This will not prohibit borrowing by defendants from banks, savings and loan companies or other institutional borrowing except as such may be limited by paragraph 3(b) below.
 
(b) Investing or re-investing funds of present inter vivos trustors without prior notice to such trustor of the complete and true nature of the proposed investment or reinvestment and the security therefor and a detailed statement of the amount of all fees, commissions, or otherwise to be received by defendants or any of them in connection therewith, and the source of same, and until written approval for such investment or re-investment and fees has been received by defendants from such trustor. Copies of such notices and written approvals shall be filed with the Court with copies to plaintiff at the time of mailing the notice and at the time of receipt.
 
(c) Charging or collecting from any inter vivos trust fund service fees or charges of any kind except those clearly and fully detailed in paragraphs A through J of defendants' document entitled "Predesigned and Formalized Living Trust Fee Schedule" filed herein on June 12, , as an exhibit to defendants' motions filed that date. Except as provided in paragraph 3(b) above, such fees and charges shall not include the 20% discount or finder's fee referred to earlier in this opinion * and that or other commissions or charges referred to in paragraph K of the above document.
 
(d) Using the income from any trust investment for any purpose other than to pay directly to or for the account of the trustor of that trust as the trustor has specifically authorized or directed in writing in the trust agreement or in connection therewith and except as permitted by paragraph 3(c) above.
 
(e) Withdrawing or disbursing any funds or assets of the defendant corporation except in the regular and ordinary course of business and for payment of necessary professional fees and costs incurred for the benefit of the corporation including defense of this action, and fees and costs ordered paid to Special Counsel pursuant to the stipulation and order herein of October 8, , and in connection with institutional borrowing permitted by paragraph 3(a) above.

4. Defendants will permit and provide free and complete access during regular business hours to representatives and employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission for examination of books and records and for interview of officers and employees of defendant corporation as may be reasonably necessary to insure compliance with this order.

5. In order that investors may be fully and fairly informed as to the statutes of this case, possible legal remedies they may have, and its possible effect on their investments, defendants, within ten (10) days of the filing hereof, or such extension as the Court may grant, will mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to every present noteholder, preferred stockholder, trustor and the heads of all sales organizations and independent salesmen (not a part of any such organization) through whom defendants were marketing or selling or offering to sell corporate promissory or capital notes, inter vivos trusts or preferred stock on and subsequent to October 8, Counsel for defendants will promptly after such mailing file with the Court an affidavit personally confirming the mailings above ordered.

6. This Court will retain jurisdiction of this action in order to insure compliance with this Order and to entertain any suitable application or motion by plaintiff or defendants for additional relief or for modification or clarification of this Order should such be justified.

7. Because of the mailings heretofore and herein ordered, preferred stockholders, corporate noteholders and revocable inter vivos trustors will have been fully advised of the investment practices of defendants, and thus the requirements of law for full and fair disclosure will have been complied with as to past sales. Therefore, at the end of sixty (60) days from the date of filing hereof, defendants, by appropriate motion and notice to plaintiff, may move to quash sub-paragraphs 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e) of the foregoing injunctive order. By that time investors and their counsel will have had ample opportunity to determine whether they wish to take any action, and one of the two purposes for maintenance of the status quo, as stated by the court in Los Angeles Trust Deed & Mortgage Exch. v. SEC, will have been satisfied.

8. The foregoing Opinion and the Stipulations filed herein shall constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the above Order.

 
OPINION AND ORDER 
On Motion for Clarification

In this case plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and appointment of a receiver. Extensive hearings were held and on July 1, this Court filed its Opinion and Order which included findings of fact and conclusions of law, all of which are incorporated herein by reference. The Court denied the request for appointment of a receiver and determined that "absent a further showing" the * injunctive relief provided therein would be adequate to prevent future abuses of the kind noted in that Opinion, to conserve the assets for the investors and by sending copies of the stipulated facts together with a copy of the page Opinion and Order would give investors and creditors an opportunity to determine if they wished to resort to such traditional legal remedies as might be indicated. L. A. Trust D & M Exch. v. S.E.C., F.2d (9th Cir. ). The order also retained jurisdiction and provided for policing by plaintiff to insure compliance.

Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for clarification (after a dispute with defendants over the meaning and extent of the "policing" order), and renewed its motion for appointment of a receiver. Defendants have moved to quash portions of the injunction and to permit them to resume sales of Keogh plan trusts, slightly modified revocable inter vivos trusts and other securities, all without registration. Oral argument on these various motions was heard on August 15,

At oral argument there was introduced by stipulation a copy of a newsletter sent by defendants to all their investors immediately after filing of the Court's July 1st Opinion but well before copies of that Opinion and Order were distributed to the investors.

The first paragraph of that newsletter and the only part here relevant stated:

 
"GOOD NEWS WE WON WE BEAT THE S.E.C.!! As of P.M., July 1, , the Judge ruled in our favor against the government by denying a receiver and we cannot tell you how happy it makes us. It will preserve your interest also, as we personally have a feeling of obligation to our clients which could not be replaced. Details will come later."

This newsletter was never submitted to counsel for approval.

By statements made and, more important, by the material omission of the other findings and conclusions in, and the relief actually granted by that order, defendants obviously hoped to lull their present investors into a sense of security, to discourage the unsophisticated from reading the lengthy legal Opinion or consulting counsel and to completely mislead them as to the Court's findings, conclusions and order.

The purpose and content of that newsletter was a blatant attempt to mislead defendants' investors.

The above constitutes a sufficient further showing for this Court to reconsider its original denial of the request for appointment of a receiver.

While there has been no sufficient showing by plaintiff that the defendant corporation-trustee is insolvent, that is not determinative. S.E.C. v. Bowler, F.2d (4th Cir. ).

When the misleading newsletter is added to the facts and conclusions contained in the earlier Opinion and Order of this Court it becomes apparent that here a receiver is necessary to protect the public interest and those who have inflicted serious detriment in the past must be ousted. S.E.C. v. Bowler, supra. It is now obvious that no injunction which this Court could frame would cure for the past or prevent in the future the mismanagement and illegalities found in the operation of defendant Heritage to the detriment of the mostly unsophisticated investors to whom it has sold and again proposes to sell. Although, as equitable relief, the disadvantage and possible deleterious effect of the appointment of a receiver must be weighed against considerations indicating the need for such relief, the Court is now satisfied that the balance supports the Commission's request. Cf. S.E.C. v. Bowler, supra.

It is ordered:

1. Defendants' motion to modify this Court's previous injunctive order and to * approve resumption of sales as proposed is in each and every respect denied.

2. Paragraph 3(a) of that order is amended to specifically include a prohibition against the selling or offering to sell so-called Keogh or pension trusts of any and every kind until further order of the Court.

3. Although not raised by counsel, the Court notes a possible ambiguity in subparagraph 3(e) of the July 1st Order. It was not the intention by that subparagraph to prohibit defendant corporation from paying when due the interest or principal on the corporate notes which have been sold by the defendant corporation, the further sale of which was enjoined by that Order.

4. Paragraph 4 of that order is enlarged to permit full and complete access to all books and records of defendant corporation by representatives and employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the purpose not only of insuring compliance, but for a full and complete determination of the financial status of defendant corporation and the present status of and security for all investments, whether Keogh plans, revocable trusts, corporate notes, preferred stock or otherwise, and to report to the Court.

5. The request for a receiver is granted. Counsel for plaintiff will promptly submit to the Court a proposed form of order for appointment of a receiver and authorizing employment of counsel for the receiver, to take charge of all books, records and assets of defendant corporation, and to investigate and make recommendations to the Court as to proceedings to be taken in the interest of and for the protection of all investors and trustors. Counsel for plaintiff will also promptly submit to the Court a list of persons willing and capable of acting as such receiver and the compensation proposed. This paragraph 5 only is stayed for a period of fifteen (15) days to permit defendants to appeal and attempt to secure a further stay, pending appeal.

NOTES

[1] The government has not adequately established fraud in connection with these sales.

[2] The Court against notes the commingling of trust income and the use of corporate funds to "assure" a fixed return to all trustees whether their investment is in default or not.

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

About Us

The Family Heritage Trust Company offers a range of fiduciary and wealth management services designed to simplify complex financial challenges. We are a Trust Service Office of Midwest Trust Company, a Kansas non-depository trust company regulated and examined by the Office of the State Banking Commissioner of Kansas.
More Info

Specializations

The Family Heritage Trust Company specializes in administrating individual, special needs, family and institutional trusts with services such as portfolio management, bill paying, tax planning and assistance for individuals with life challenges. The Family Heritage Trust Company also provides professional trustee and co-trustee services.
More Info

Our Team

The Family Heritage Trust Company was founded by a group of financial professionals, attorneys and CPAs from the region. With over years of combined experience, our dedicated staff works to ensure that each client receives the personalized, face-to-face service that is the cornerstone of our business philosophy.
More Info

Our Mission

Our mission is to provide clients a broad range of competent and professional fiduciary management services. The Family Heritage Trust Company’s services respond to the need for specialized administration of individual, special needs, family and institutional trusts as the financial industry continues to consolidate and reduce trust services and investment management offerings.

As a fiduciary, we are held to the highest standards of professional conduct and have a legal obligation to oversee investment portfolios to ensure assets are managed according to client objectives and needs.

What Our Clients Say

I was impressed with the time and effort that The Family Heritage Trust Company invested in developing the right investment strategy for me, and year after year I have been impressed with the performance of my investment portfolio.

Derek Sanford Hagerstown, MD

The staff at The Family Heritage Trust Company are professional, attentive and knowledgable. It is refreshing to always have a person answer the phone when I call and not a machine.

Christopher Turner Frederick, MD

The Family Heritage Trust Company has gone above and beyond as a trustee. I feel confident knowing that they are willing to take care of the smallest details to ensure my financial affairs are managed effectively.

Robert Wilson Washington, D.C.

The benefits of the personalized service I receive with The Family Heritage Trust Company cannot be overestimated. They prioritize knowing their clients, which is refreshing and saves me time.

Piper Ruth Middletown, MD

Latest News

February Newsletter

With the volatility of the past year, those investors who stayed in the market came out at the end of the year with little or no losses.

More Info

January Newsletter

The year proved to be one of the most tumultuous in modern history, marked by a number of developments that were historically unprecedented. But the year also demonstrated the resilience of people, institutions, and financial markets.

More Info

© - The Family Heritage Trust Company

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

YOUR TRUST, OUR DUTY

Heritage Trust is a state-chartered, locally-owned, independent trust company, devoted to families and their advisors. We have offices in Taos, Santa Fe and Albuquerque, New Mexico, but we’re virtually everywhere. We’ve been working for traditional, non-traditional and modern families since We’re unique, just like your family.

 

Fiduciary+-+New+Mexico+Heritage+Trust

Unlike A Bank

Unlike a bank, Heritage Trust is a locally-owned, independent trust company, devoted to families and their advisors. We're unique, just like your family.
Learn more

Estate Planning, Incapacity Administration

Our Services

We pride ourselves in finding creative solutions for our clients.
Learn more

Independent Local True - New Mexico Heritage Trust

True Stories

Since we've been working for New Mexico families. And you can bet we've accumulated some amazing stories and friends. Here's a collection of a few of the greatest remembrances.
You won't believe some of these

 

&#;The staff at Heritage Trust is extremely professional, well-prepared to answer my questions heritage trust company address my concerns, and is always quick to respond to my requests. They are a delight to work with and I look forward to continuing to work with Heritage Trust in the future.&#;

 

Источник: mynewextsetup.us
The UNESCO/Netherlands Funds-in-Trust (NFiT) co-operation to support the World Heritage Centre was established in by the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences with the aim of reinforcing the implementation of the "Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage".

Under this Funds-in-Trust arrangement the Government of the Netherlands made available an amount of € million over a period of four years (). Inthe NFiT Co-operation Agreement was extended 5th time for the period of

Objective

Projects and programmes under the NFiT cooperation are structured heritage trust company to the Strategic Objectives adopted by the World Heritage Committee (5Cs), in pursuance of regional and thematic balances, and the sustainability of support given in terms of project follow-up or spin-off. Support would be also considered for a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger and/or heritage in conflict situation, when feasible.

  • Credibility: Technical assistance to Tentative List and Nomination preparations, primarily in under-represented regions, and Thematic Studies and Expert Meetings in particular on under-represented categories of heritage;
  • Conservation: Technical assistance to preparation of Conservation Management Plans, and to projects of Sustainable Development of inscribed properties and sites, in particular in under-represented regions of the world;
  • Capacity Building: Support to Training Seminars and National Workshops, Technical Assistance to Professional and Institutional Building;
  • Communication: Dissemination of information, education, public awareness raising, sites presentation;
  • Community:  Enhance the role of Communities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Furthermore, under the NFiT special attention will heritage trust company reserved for the category of mutual heritage or shared cultural heritage: the heritage that is perceived by the Netherlands and other countries or regions concerned as shared cultural heritage. This heritage extends beyond the remnants in former colonies and could include cultural properties originating from other international ventures by the Netherlands as well.

Under this Funds-in-Trust arrangement, no restrictions are applied to allocating funds to particular regions of the world or to the nationality of consultants to be used for missions or implementation of projects. As a result of this relative freedom, over the past four years a fairly equal distribution of projects and sites that were selected for sponsoring has taken place over the regions of Africa, Arab States, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Equiom has announced the acquisition of Heritage Trust Group, an independent Asian corporate services provider with offices in Singapore and Hong Kong.

Established in and heritage trust company by Chief Executive Officer Angelo Venardos, Heritage Trust Group provides trust, foundation, fiduciary, corporate and accounting services.

Equiom Global Chief Executive Officer, Sheila Dean, commented:

‘The acquisition of Heritage Trust Group expands Equiom’s jurisdictional reach into Singapore while expanding our current team in Hong Kong. Equiom’s growth strategy continues to concentrate on achieving scale and substance throughout every jurisdiction heritage trust company operate in. I’m pleased to welcome Angelo and his team to Equiom – they echo Equiom’s philosophy of building long-standing relationships with clients and very much mirror our client services ethos. For Equiom clients this provides further access to international services and expertise. I thank our equity partners LDC and our legal advisers Gowling WLG for their valued input and support throughout this acquisition project.’

Angelo Venardos Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Trust Group added:

‘This is a positive move for Heritage Trust Group. Our priority has always been to provide heritage trust company best service in the industry and this has become increasingly difficult in an environment faced with more competition and regulatory requirements. Becoming part of the Equiom Group will ensure our clients continue to receive the service they deserve, in addition to benefitting from the breadth of services and skills available through the wider Equiom Group. Heritage clients can rest assured that they will continue to liaise with the same contacts who will now become employees of Equiom. From their perspective, nothing heritage trust company change other than access to a much expanded range of global services.’

A total of 60 staff, including the senior management team, will join Heritage trust company Group with immediate effect. The Hong Kong team will move into Equiom’s established offices in Wanchai and Heritage will rebrand to Equiom in January  

The acquisition of Heritage follows the recent announcement of Equiom’s strategic partnership with Links Group in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. 

Learn more about Equiom in Singapore Back to all news Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Causeway Coast & Glens Heritage Trust Announce Free Online Webinars For Local Creatives In Brand Storytelling & Social Media Marketing

Causeway Coast & Glens Heritage Trust, in partnership with Ulster University, are delivering two free marketing and social media training sessions to local creatives, storytellers, and artisans next week as part of the EU funded Northword project.

Led by trainer and founder of Excalibur Press, Tina Calder the virtual training begins on Monday December 6 with the Supercharge Your Marketing By Creating Your Brand Story and will be followed by Everything Heritage trust company Need To Know About Social Media For Marketing Your Business on Thursday December 9 where Tina will home remedies for viral diarrhea in babies attendees through all of the keyinfrastructures that make up their brand such as brand story, brand mission and brand social media content style.

Tiérna Mullan, the CCGHTProject Officer said: “The pandemic has highlighted the importance of digital platforms in supporting the creative industry, and the Northword project aims to further harness this potential.

“The wealth of creative talent in the Causeway Coast and Glens and Mid & East Antrim Borough Council areas is phenomenal and through the two online training sessions we can support the creative industries in remote areas and enhance their online presence.” 

Trainer Tina Calder has acquired a wealth of knowledge in 25 years working in local media having worked with a large number of thought leaders and business owners. Tina specialises in helping businesses transform and level up their marketing and communications efforts.

“I&#;m delighted to be working with Causeway Coast & Glens Heritage Trust on this fantastic project to be able to support business in the creative sector in areas of their marketing such as brand storytelling and social media marketing” said Tina, adding: “Programmes like this that offer free training are absolutely vital in supporting our vibrant and exciting small businesses within the creative sector.”

CCGHT is a registered charity devoted to protecting and enhancing the unique heritage of the Causeway Coast and Glens area, and in collaboration with Ulster University, they are the lead facilitators of the Northword project in Northern Ireland.

Northword is a transnational project that seeks to use traditional storytelling to support creative industries in northern countriesin remote areas and enhance the online presence of small businesses. 

It also seeks to draw on and support long traditions of storytelling in northern locales and encourage communities to rediscover and celebrate local tales.

Both training sessions will be recorded and will include an interactive element such as a Is the heritage foundation reliable session and participant handouts.

To register for the events, go to mynewextsetup.us

Sign up to the Northword e-newsletter to keep up to date with progress and upcoming events Sign up for the Northword e-newsletter! &#; Northword NI

For more information on the Northword project visit mynewextsetup.us heritage trust company mynewextsetup.us

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Get 3% Cash Back on All Your Holiday Purchases!

We want to help you make the holiday season a little easier by offering you 3% cash back on all purchases with our Cash Reward Mastercard! 3% cash back on electronics, travel, dining and anything else you need to make this season one to remember.

Start earning 3% Cash Back now

Mortgage rates are now at an all-time low. With rates as low as % APR and NO closing costs*, you can lower your monthly payment and pay off your home sooner. Apply now and see how much interest you can save.

Learn More!

Our Grand Illumination invites the community back to our campus all season long. Stroll our campus, enjoy the lights and decorations and take family photos from November 28th until New Years.

Learn more about Grand Illumination

Meet VANA (Video Advisor Network Associates), our Video Advisor service that provides members with a virtual face-to-face experience. This new service uses face-to-face video technology to connect members with one of American Heritage’s VANA representatives.

Learn more about Heritage trust company Advisor!

 

Helping you Plan for Life Stages

Convenient Products & Services For You & Your Family

Welcome Viriva Members!

We are excited to welcome over 8, Viriva Community Credit Union members to our family. Viriva members overwhelmingly voted to merge with American Heritage. Click the button below to learn more about the merger and important information about your new accounts and services.

Learn More about the Viriva Merger

Our New Warminster Branch is Now Open!

The Warminster branch will extend American Heritage’s presence and convenience in the Bucks County region. Learn more about this location, services offered, hours of operation, contact information and more here!

Learn More about our Warminster Branch

Mortgage and Realty Offers for First-Time homebuyers!

First-time American Heritage homebuyers receive up to $ mortgage closing cost credit, and a $ gift from American Heritage Realty!

Get Started

We suntrust bank routing number for direct deposit on a mission to strengthen our communities. Learn how we work with partners such as CHOP to make a positive, lasting heritage trust company on the people and organizations in our neighborhoods. Join us on that mission!

Join the Cause

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Posted in The

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *