Jessica Kimmel

CI Investments Inc. self-reported an understatement of the net asset value of certain mutual funds due to unrecorded interest totaling approximately $156.1 million over five years.

Staff alleged inadequacies in CII's system of controls and supervision.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein CII agreed to compensate affected investors, make a voluntary payment of $8,000,000 to the Commission, and pay $50,000 in costs.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it to be in the public interest given CII's prompt self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation efforts.

The applicants sought to vary management cease trade orders (MCTOs) under section 144 of the Securities Act to permit trading in connection with a proposed going private transaction by Hollinger Inc. The Commission found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that varying the MCTOs would not be prejudicial to the public interest.

The Commission cited concerns regarding the lack of current audited financial statements, the adequacy of the independent valuation, the potential conflicts of interest in the proposed litigation trust, and evidence of undue influence exerted by related parties on the independent committee and valuator.

The applications were denied.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Hearing Panel reconsider a prior panel's decision dismissing a motion to strike certain words from the Statement of Allegations.

The Hearing Panel found it had no jurisdiction to review the prior decision under section 144 of the Securities Act, Rule 9 of the Rules of Practice, or the common law doctrine of functus officio.

Even if jurisdiction existed, the panel would have dismissed the motion, finding that the inclusion of the words 'and contrary to the public interest' did not impair the applicant's right to know the case to meet.

The applicant, a respondent in an insider trading proceeding, brought a pre-hearing motion seeking a ruling that the Commission could not make a public interest order against her under section 127 of the Securities Act if Staff failed to prove the specific allegation of insider trading under section 76(1).

A prior panel had dismissed the same motion as premature.

The Hearing Panel agreed with the prior panel, holding that it was inappropriate to tie the hands of the decision-makers before hearing the evidence and closing submissions.

The motion was dismissed as premature.