Jonathon T. Feasby

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities related to oil leases, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing in writing to determine sanctions and costs.

The respondents did not participate.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans, an administrative penalty of $300,000 per respondent, joint and several disgorgement of $2,761,979 and US$319,597, and costs of $363,146.87, finding the conduct egregious and harmful to investors.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities.

The Commission found that the 'Armadillo Securities' were investment contracts and therefore securities under the Securities Act.

The respondents traded and distributed these securities to Ontario investors without being registered and without filing a prospectus, contrary to sections 25(1) and 53(1) of the Act.

The Commission determined it had jurisdiction over the foreign respondents because acts in furtherance of the trades occurred in Ontario.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities, the Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The respondents, who acted as salespersons for a real estate limited partnership, raised over $5 million from investors over several years.

The Commission considered the seriousness of the breaches, the respondents' experience, and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The Commission ordered market bans of five years for one respondent and three years for the other, along with administrative penalties, disgorgement of commissions earned, and joint and several liability for hearing costs.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities in relation to limited partnership units for real estate development in Saskatchewan.

The Commission found that the limited partnership units were securities (investment contracts) and that the respondents, acting as market intermediaries, traded and distributed these securities without being registered and without filing a prospectus, in breach of sections 25(1) and 53(1) of the Securities Act.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing regarding allegations of a 'pump and dump' scheme involving shares of Sulja Nevada.

The respondents Vucicevich, Banumas, and Shah did not contest the allegations.

The Commission found that Vucicevich issued materially misleading press releases to artificially inflate the stock price and subsequently sold shares through nominee accounts held by Banumas and Shah.

The Commission concluded that Vucicevich traded without registration, distributed securities without a prospectus, and perpetrated a fraud contrary to the Securities Act.

Banumas and Shah were found to have contributed to a misleading appearance of trading activity.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing regarding a 'pump and dump' scheme involving the promotion and sale of shares of Sulja Nevada.

Based on uncontested evidence, the Commission found that Steven Sulja, as CEO, breached subsection 126.2(1) of the Securities Act by failing to correct false statements in press releases regarding merger opportunities, revenue potential, and audit arrangements.

The Commission also found that Sam Sulja breached subsection 126.1(a) of the Act by trading heavily as a nominee to conceal another party's involvement, thereby creating a misleading appearance of trading activity.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of a decision by the Ontario District Council of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC), which found he engaged in conduct unbecoming by having an undisclosed financial interest in client accounts.

The Ontario Securities Commission applied a restrained approach to reviewing the self-regulatory organization's decision, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the District Council proceeded on an incorrect principle, erred in law, or overlooked material evidence.

The application was dismissed.