Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Release No. 47716 / April 22, 2003

Administrative Proceeding
File No. 3-11059

In the Matter of

HEXAGON CONSOLIDATED
COMPANIES OF AMERICA, INC.

Respondent.

 :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:		 ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTION PURSUANT TO RULE 155(a)(2)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) issued its Order Instituting Proceedings (OIP) on March 10, 2003. Respondent received a copy of the OIP no later than March 13, 2003, but it did not file an answer within the time allowed. On April 8, 2003, the Division of Enforcement (Division) filed a motion for default. On April 9, 2003, I directed Respondent to file its response to the motion for default, if any, and its answer to the OIP, if any, on or before April 17, 2003.

On April 17, 2003, Respondent, through its president and chairman, executed a signed, notarized consent to the entry of an order making the findings of fact and imposing the remedial sanction sought in the OIP. The Division has now forwarded that consent to me, and has asked me to enter an order making the findings and imposing the sanction necessary to resolve the proceeding.

Pursuant to Rule 155(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, a hearing officer may determine the proceeding against a party upon consideration of the record, including the OIP, if that party fails to answer, fails to respond to a dispositive motion, or fails "otherwise to defend the proceeding." Here, Respondent has made clear its intent not to defend. I find and conclude that Rule 155(a)(2), and not any other Rule of Practice, governs the resolution of this matter.1

I further find that the following allegations in the OIP are true:

Hexagon Consolidated Companies of America, Inc. (HCCA), is a Nevada corporation formerly located in Reno, Nevada, and now located in Henderson, Nevada. HCCA's common stock has been registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) since February 4, 1997, when its Form 10-SB registration statement, filed with the Commission on December 6, 1996, became effective. HCCA was originally incorporated in Montana in 1967 as Cadgie Taylor Company. After a merger and various name changes, the company changed its name in July 1999 from Health Care Centers of America, Inc., to Hexagon Consolidated Companies of America, Inc.

HCCA was required, pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, to file timely annual reports on Form 10-KSB and timely quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB. Beginning on or about March 30, 2000, HCCA has failed to file the following reports:

  1. Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999;
  2. Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2000;
  3. Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2000;
  4. Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2000;
  5. Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2000;
  6. Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2001;
  7. Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2001;
  8. Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2001;
  9. Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001;
  10. Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2002;
  11. Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2002; and
  12. Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002.

As a result of the foregoing, HCCA failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.

HCCA's common stock was quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board until it was declared ineligible on February 24, 2000, for failing to meet the National Association of Securities Dealers's "eligible securities" criteria (Rule 6530). HCCA's common stock continues to trade in the over-the-counter market.

I conclude that it is necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors to revoke the registration of the common stock of HCCA, pursuant to section 12(j) of the Exchange Act.

IT IS ORDERED THAT the registration of the common stock of Hexagon Consolidated Companies of America, Inc., is revoked, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

______________________
James T. Kelly
Administrative Law Judge

Endnotes

1 Respondent's "consent" does not comply with the requirements of an offer of settlement, and neither party requested the entry of an order by the Commission, as distinguished from an Administrative Law Judge. See Rule 240 of the Commission's Rules of Practice. The Division has not sought summary disposition, and I do not consider the "consent" as acquiescing to action under Rule 250 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.