MFDA Hearing Panel approves settlement agreement with Roland Lemay
TORONTO, Feb. 3, 2017 /CNW/ - A settlement hearing in the matter of Roland Lemay (the "Respondent") was held on February 2, 2017 in Vancouver, British Columbia before a three-member Hearing Panel of the Pacific Regional Council of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada ("MFDA").
The Hearing Panel approved the settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") between Staff of the MFDA and the Respondent, as a consequence of which the following sanctions were imposed on the Respondent:
- a permanent prohibition from conducting securities related business while in the employ of or associated with any MFDA Member;
- a fine in the amount of $5,000, payable within six (6) month from the date of the Hearing Panel Order; and
- costs in the amount of $2,500.
In the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent admitted that:
| a) |
between January 2007 and December 30, 2014, he recommended to at least 142 clients that the clients concentrate all, or a substantial portion, of their investment holdings in precious metals sector funds, without conducting adequate due diligence to assess the suitability of his investment recommendations on a client-by-client basis having regard to the essential Know-Your-Client ("KYC") factors relevant to each individual client, including the client's age, risk tolerance, ability to withstand investment losses, and investment knowledge and experience, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.2.1 and 2.1.1; |
| b) |
between January 2007 and December 30, 2014, he recorded that at least 142 clients had "high" risk tolerance on account forms in order to ensure that the KYC information for the clients matched his investment recommendations to concentrate all, or a substantial portion, of the clients' investment holdings in precious metals sector funds, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.2.1 and 2.1.1; |
| c) |
between January 2007 and December 30, 2014, he failed to fully explain the risks and benefits of investing in precious metals sector funds, thereby failing to ensure that his recommendations were suitable for the clients and in keeping with their investment objectives, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.2.1 and 2.1.1; |
| d) |
between January 2007 and December 30, 2014, he failed to use due diligence to learn and accurately record the essential KYC factors relative to clients DH and FH prior to making investment recommendations and accepting investment orders from clients DH and FH, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.2.1 and 2.1.1; and |
| e) |
between January 2007 and December 30, 2014, he failed to use due diligence to ensure that each order accepted and recommendation made to clients DH and FH was suitable for the clients and in keeping with their investment objectives when recommended that the clients concentrate all of their investment holdings in a single precious metals sector fund, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.2.1 and 2.1.1. |
A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available on the MFDA website at www.mfda.ca. During the period described in the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent carried on business in Vancouver, British Columbia.
The MFDA is the self-regulatory organization for Canadian mutual fund dealers, regulating the operations, standards of practice and business conduct of its Members and their approximately 83,000 Approved Persons with a mandate to protect investors and the public interest. For more information about the MFDA's complaint and enforcement processes, as well as links to 'Check an Advisor' and other Investor Tools, visit the For Investors page on the MFDA website.
SOURCE Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada
Charles Toth, Director, Litigation, 416-943-4619, [email protected]; Jeff Mount, Vice-President, Pacific Region, 604-694-8846, [email protected]
Share this article