MFDA Hearing Panel issues Reasons for Decision in the matter of Lawrence Fike
Dec 19, 2017, 16:41 ET
TORONTO, Dec. 19, 2017 /CNW/ - A Hearing Panel of the Central Regional Council of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada ("MFDA") has issued its Reasons for Decision in connection with a settlement hearing held in Toronto, Ontario on December 7, 2017 in the matter of Lawrence Philip Fike ("Respondent").
In its Reasons for Decision dated December 18, 2017, the Hearing Panel confirmed the sanctions imposed on the Respondent. In particular, the Respondent:
- is permanently prohibited from conducting securities related business in any capacity while in the employ of or associated with any MFDA Member;
- shall pay a fine in the amount of $10,000 ("Fine");
- has paid costs in the amount of $5,000 ("Costs");
- shall make payment of the Fine and Costs to the MFDA Staff in certified funds as follows:
- $5,000 (Costs) upon acceptance of the settlement agreement;
- $2,500 (Fine) shall be paid upon acceptance of the settlement agreement;
- $2,500 (Fine) shall be paid on or before the last business day of the second month following the acceptance of the settlement agreement
- $2,500 (Fine) shall be paid on or before the final business day of the fourth month following the acceptance of the settlement agreement; and
- $2,500 (Fine) shall be paid on or before the final business day of the six month following the acceptance of the settlement agreement;
- if the Respondent fails to make any of the payments of the Fine then any outstanding balance owed shall immediately become due and payable to the MFDA; and
- in the future shall comply with MFDA Rules 2.2.1 and 2.2.1.
In the Settlement Agreement dated October 16, 2017, the Respondent admitted that:
between October 2008 and May 2014, he failed to use due diligence to learn and accurately record the essential Know-Your-Client factors relative to five (5) clients prior to making investment recommendations and accepting investment orders from the clients, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.2.1 and 2.1.1;
between October 2008 and May 2014, he failed to use due diligence to ensure that each order accepted and recommendations made to five (5) clients were suitable for the clients and in keeping with their investment objectives having regard to the concentration of precious metal sector funds in the client accounts and the clients' Know-Your-Client information, including the client's investment knowledge and objectives, risk tolerance, age, and time horizon, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.2.1 and 2.1.1; and
between October 2008 and May 2014, he failed to present a balanced explanation of the risks and benefits of investing in precious metals sector funds, thereby failing to ensure that his recommendations were suitable for clients and in keeping with their investment objectives, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.2.1 and 2.1.1.
Copies of the Reasons for Decision and the Settlement Agreement are available on the MFDA website at www.mfda.ca. During the period described in the Reasons for Decision, the Respondent conducted business in the Barrie, Ontario area.
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
For further information: Charles Toth, Director, Litigation, 416-943-4619, [email protected]
Share this article