It's a "summary" of the story so far -
[1] This was a hearing before the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”)
pursuant to section 127 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as amended (the
“Act”), to consider whether Sulja Bros. Building Supplies, Ltd., (Nevada) (“Sulja
Nevada”), Kore International Management Inc. (“Kore Canada”) and Andrew DeVries
(“DeVries”) breached the Act and acted contrary to the public interest.
[2] The proceeding on the merits was commenced by a Statement of Allegations and a
Notice of Hearing dated December 27, 2006 with respect to Sulja Nevada, Sulja Bros.
Building Supplies Ltd. (Ontario) (“Sulja Ontario”), Kore Canada, Petar Vucicevich
(“Vucicevich”) and DeVries. An Amended Statement of Allegations and a second Notice
of Hearing were issued on June 16, 2008 to remove Sulja Ontario as a respondent and to
add Steven Sulja, Pranab Shah (“Shah”), Tracey Banumas (“Banumas”) and Sam Sulja
as respondents. Sulja Nevada, Vucicevich, Kore Canada, DeVries, Steven Sulja, Shah,
Banumas and Sam Sulja are collectively referred to as the “Respondents”.
[3] Vucicevich, Steven Sulja, Shah, Banumas and Sam Sulja did not contest the
allegations brought by Staff of the Commission (“Staff”). These Respondents, who had
their allegations dealt with on September 13, 14 and 24, 2010, are collectively referred to
as the “Non-Contesting Respondents”. Our reasons and decisions with respect to the
Non-Contesting Respondents were issued on October 28, 2010 (Re Sulja Bros. Building
Supplies, Ltd. (2010), 33 O.S.C.B. 10173 (the “Vucicevich Merits Reasons”) and Re
Sulja Bros. Building Supplies, Ltd. (2010), 33 O.S.C.B. 10180 (the “Sulja Merits
Reasons”)).
[4] The hearing relating to the remaining respondents, Sulja Nevada, Kore Canada, and
DeVries, proceeded in the normal course on September 24, 2010 (the “Contested
Proceeding Respondents”). None of Sulja Nevada, Kore Canada or DeVries, although
properly served with notice of the proceeding, attended by counsel, agent, or in person.
The hearing concluded on September 29, 2010, when we gave an oral ruling making
summary findings against the Contested Proceeding Respondents with the understanding
that more complete reasons would follow. These are those reasons.
B. The Contested Proceeding Respondents |
