https://www.nhbar.org/publications/archives/display-journal-issue.asp?

id=26
program is voluntary on the part of the businesses; however, it is generally well received and cooperation and
participation is high. When the response from the business is received, a mediator evaluates the case and
determines whether mediation is possible. If the business has agreed to participate in the mediation, the mediator
helps to facilitate an amicable resolution.
In the last two years, over 3,300 cases were referred to the mediation program and the Bureau recovered
$473,433 in money, goods, or services for consumers through the mediation program.
In the event a consumer complaint is not coded for mediation, but rather is referred to another agency or small
claims court, the consumer receives the appropriate information and, if possible, the names of individuals to
contact to assist in resolving their claim. There are a small number of complaints received for which the Bureau
cannot provide any resolution or referral. In those instances, consumers are informed that their information will be
kept on file to track the businesss practices. Regardless of the ultimate coding of a complaint, most consumers
also receive helpful brochures.
In 2002, the top five complaints received by the Bureau were problems with used car dealerships, building and
home contractors, credit cards, telephone billing, and consumer purchases. In 2003, the top five complaints
involved used car dealerships, debt collection, telemarketing, home contractors, and mail order merchandise.
Notably, 2003 also saw a marked increase in the number of complaints dealing with Internet purchases both
directly from companies and through Internet auction websites.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTORIAL POWERS

The Consumer Protection Act allows the Bureau a broad range of options if violations of the Act are suspected.
Administrative Enforcement by issuing an Administrative Subpoena is one vehicle available.10 If the Bureau has
reason to believe that trade or commerce in violation of the Act is being or is about to be conducted, an
Administrative Subpoena can be issued. The subpoena can require the production of documents and/or testimony
and require a personal appearance from the business at the Office of the Attorney General.11 The Bureau uses
the Administrative Subpoena quite frequently. In 2002 and 2003, the Bureau issued subpoenas to twenty-eight
businesses, an all-time high. In most instances the pending consumer complaints were resolved, and in many
cases, the businesses agreed to change their business practices to protect future consumers.

The Bureau also has the authority to file in Superior Court for temporary and permanent injunctions against
businesses.12 Usually the Bureau refrains from using this action unless all other more informal approaches have
been rejected or ignored by a business. A related tool, which is regularly used by the Bureau, is an Assurance of
Discontinuance.13 This is when a business meets with the Bureau in either an informal setting or after receiving
an Administrative Subpoena. In these instances, the Bureau does not go so far as to file an Injunction, but rather
the business agrees to the Assurance, which is a formal document which typically includes an agreement from the
business to change a business practice and/or remedy consumer complaints. This document is then placed on file
in Superior Court.

Since it is often overlooked, it is worth noting that the Consumer Protection Act also creates a private right of
action for consumers if they are harmed by a businesss violation of the Act.14 This provision authorizes attorneys
fees plus the greater of actual damages or $1,000 to prevailing plaintiffs.15 Moreover, in the case of a willful or
knowing violation by a business, the statute authorizes two or three times the actual damages suffered by
consumer plaintiffs.16 Class action suits are also permitted under the Act.17
A. Civil and Equity Actions

During the last two years, the Bureau has engaged in or concluded at least seven consumer protection civil
lawsuits or other enforcement actions involving a variety of unfair and/or deceptive trade practices. The following
are recent illustrative examples.
James Moran Jr., High Peaks Roofing An equity injunction was filed against this company for taking
deposits from many consumers and either not completing or not starting the contracted for work. The court
ordered Mr. Moran not to take any deposits from customers until he had "substantially completed" the
work.18 Mr. Moran was also found guilty in criminal proceedings after a bench trial (see infra section B).
Raymond Donahue, All Clear Pools An equity action was initiated alleging deposits were taken for the
delivery and/or installation of pools and/or spas and no work was performed. The civil action was stayed
when Mr. Donahue filed for bankruptcy.19 Related criminal charges are currently pending as well (see infra
section B).
Roland White, SDI General Contracting The Bureau filed an equity action against Roland White, Amy
Paquette and their various businesses, alleging that they took over $300,000 from consumers, by taking
deposits and either not performing any of the contracted for work or performing partial work but doing it in
a shoddy manner, requiring the work to be redone by someone else.20 These charges are pending. White
also pleaded guilty to fourteen felony charges (see infra section B).
James Kenton, Pro-tite Corp. This home contracting and roofing company was sued for unfair and
deceptive business practices. A Settlement Agreement was reached and Kenton is making payments to
satisfy a $10,000 civil penalty.21 This company was also charged criminally (see infra section B).

Brian Duff, Best for Less Remodeling The State filed an equity action against Mr. Duff and his home
contracting business, alleging that he took deposits from consumers for home contracting services that
were not sufficiently performed. Consumers asked for refunds of their deposits when the contracted for
work was either not begun, partially performed, or performed in an unworkmanlike manner, but they were
not given refunds. Trial in this matter is pending.22

MicroSmart Technology Solutions, LLC The Bureau obtained $50,000 for restitution to New Hampshire
consumers who paid for computer technology training but did not receive it because the company went out
of business and filed for bankruptcy.23

In the past two years, a total of $54,781.25 in restitution was secured for consumers through civil actions.
B. Criminal Prosecutions

Criminal prosecution of consumer protection violations continues to be a priority of the Bureau in an effort to
protect the elderly and otherwise vulnerable citizens of New Hampshire. Unfair and deceptive trade practices in
violation of the Act are misdemeanors if committed by a natural person and felonies if committed by a business.24
The nature of the numerous complaints received by the Bureau has mandated that it focus its criminal prosecution
efforts particularly on home contractors. The number of complaints the Bureau has received against home
contractors in the last two years has increased significantly. This may be attributed in part to the fact that New
Hampshire, unlike at least thirty-six other states,25 does not have a law specifically licensing contractors and

8/22/2016 8:06 PM

https://www.nhbar.org/publications/archives/display-journal-issue.asp?id=26
placing certain restrictions on their business activities in order to protect consumers.26

In the last two years, the Bureau initiated fifty-six criminal charges, most against roofers and/or home contractors.
Thirty-eight were felony indictments and eighteen were misdemeanors. The following are an illustrative sample.
James Kenton, Pro-tite Corp., Christopher Robinson This home contractor and roofer, his home
contracting company, and an employee27 were charged with theft by deception and unfair and deceptive
business practices. These indictments charged that Mr. Kenton and Pro-tite Corp. obtained approximately
$13,000 from an elderly consumer for roofing services to her mobile home, when the services were, in
reality, only worth approximately $8,000. Another indictment charged that Mr. Kenton and Pro-tite Corp.
entered into two separate contracts with the same date, with the same elderly consumer, to provide her
with duplicative roofing services. The consumer paid in full on both contracts.
Defendant Kenton was also charged with Witness Tampering for threatening to sue a different consumer
for slander if the consumer called the Attorney Generals Office to report dissatisfaction with Pro-tite
Corp.s business practices. Additionally, Mr. Kenton was charged with Falsifying Physical Evidence for
destroying business records immediately prior to a visit to Pro-tite Corp. by investigators from the Bureau.

On August 6, 2002, Mr. Kenton pleaded guilty to all charges at the Grafton County Superior Court and was
sentenced to twelve months.28 He was fined $8,000, and ordered to pay a total of $25,375 restitution to
the two victims of his criminal conduct.29 In addition, as part of the sentence, the court ordered Mr. Kenton
and his wife, Maryellen Tiedemann, not to operate any home improvement or telemarketing business in
the State of New Hampshire for a period of ten years.30
Mr. Kenton also pleaded guilty on behalf of the business itself, Pro-tite Corp., which was sentenced on
criminal charges including Theft by Deception and three charges of Unfair and Deceptive Business
Practices.31 Pro-tite Corp. was sentenced to pay restitution in the amount of $50,000 to victims of its
deceptive business practices32 and Kenton/Pro-tite agreed to pay $10,000 as a civil penalty (see supra
section A).

Marcus Kennison This home contractor, was charged with three misdemeanor counts of Unfair or
Deceptive Business Practices, alleging that he took money from consumers and failed to perform the
agreed upon work. On March 7, 2003, he pleaded guilty to the three misdemeanors and was sentenced to
jail and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $31,055.33
James Moran, Jr. Mr. Moran was found guilty of a misdemeanor charge of Unfair or Deceptive Business
Practices and eight other charges are pending.34 Mr. Moran took over $26,000 from consumers and either
failed to perform the work and failed to make refunds, or performed partial work only. The charges also
alleged that Mr. Moran continued to take deposits from consumers, in violation of the courts order in his
related equity court case (see supra section A). Mr. Moran was sentenced to twelve months at the House
of Corrections, ordered to pay $2,800 in restitution, and may not operate a home contracting business for
ten years.35

Roger Gingras, Landmark Fence Three felony indictments against Roger Gingras and his business were
filed charging Theft by Deception. The charges stemmed from Mr. Gingras taking money from consumers
and then failing to perform the agreed upon work and failing to refund deposits. He pleaded guilty to these
charges and was ordered to pay restitution totaling $13,900 to five consumers.36
Roland W. White, SDI General Contracting, Amy Paquette Mr. White, President of SDI General
Contracting, Inc. pleaded guilty to multiple charges of Theft by Unauthorized Taking and Conspiracy to
Commit Theft.37 The Bureaus investigation into Roland White, Amy Paquette and their business practices
began when numerous complaints were received by the Bureau from consumers alleging that White
and/or Paquette took deposits in advance of performing services and then failed to perform the services;
did so in an unworkmanlike manner; failed to pay subcontractors, resulting in a lien being placed on a
consumers home; and/or disconnected their business telephone numbers and moved to another business
location without notifying consumers. The indictments alleged that White and SDI General Contracting,
Inc. exercised unauthorized control over deposits obtained from consumers, by failing to refund the
deposits after they had failed to perform the agreed upon work and the consumers had asked for their
money back. Although White told the consumers that he would refund their deposits, he failed to do so,
even though he had performed none of the agreed upon services. White was sentenced to 2 to 5 years
in prison.38
Indictments were also returned against Amy L. Paquette, the Vice President of SDI General Contracting,
Inc., charging her with Conspiracy to Commit Theft. These charges are pending.39

Raymond Donahue Six felony indictments against Raymond Donahue are pending, including charges of
Issuing Bad Checks and Theft. Raymond Donahue conducted his pool business under a variety of
business names, and acted as a dealer at a home show for a company that manufactured spas. Four of
the theft indictments allege that Mr. Donahue took in excess of $13,000 from consumers and failed to
either deliver the contracted for product and/or services and failed to refund deposits to consumers. Trial is
pending in these matters.40
Brian Duff, Best for Less Remodeling The State filed three misdemeanor charges against Brian Duff and
his business alleging unfair or deceptive business practices. Trial in these matters is pending.41

Over $128,368.32 in restitution has been ordered returned to New Hampshire consumers as a result of these
cases.
C. Multi-State Litigations and Antitrust Suits

The Bureau is often called upon to stand as a party representing the State of New Hampshire in multi-state
litigation. In these roles, the staff attorneys ensure that the citizens of New Hampshire are adequately protected
by settlements or other litigation that results from such cases. During the last two years, the Bureau participated in
a number of multi-state actions in conjunction with many other states. The actions involved both antitrust42
violations and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The resulting Settlement Agreements secured $3,761,982.54
in restitution for New Hampshire consumers and over $1,233,978.50 in penalties, attorneys fees and/or cost
recoveries for the State. Those settlements include the following:
Bridgestone/Firestone This suit involved a tire recall issue and Bridgestone/Firestones treatment of
consumers. New Hampshire received a settlement payment of $530,000.43

Mylan Laboratories This was an Antitrust Settlement for illegal agreements with drug companies that
monopolized the drug market resulting in price increases from 1,900% to 3,000%. The State recovered
$27,317, which was returned to the New Hampshire State Prison and New Hampshire State Hospital for

8/22/2016 8:06 PM