So I started digging, just for fun. And top down right, there's an option called "
Search Disciplinary Cases". So by typing "
Theralase" in this
sub-link (with "ALL" in the LIMITED TO field), I just found who manipulated TLT's stock on Dec. 31, 2014 when it reached a new high of 0.78$.
This IIROC document:
lists that person (Russell Waddington) has behind such manipulation.
Point #15 of the lawsuit identify TLT as one of the 5 companies this guy manipulated.
Remember that CrazyTrader12 once brace himself for having posted a profit (and he then posted a print screen of his transaction slip). I then challenged him back then.
CrazyTrader12 was this guy; Russell Waddington.
So quite possible that the other clown BionicJoe that was posting 7/24 was also behind something like that, but maybe in a different way. Why do you think he left all of a sudden the board by trying to tell us he was too old for that!!!
And note that some people once hinted us about Mackie. We now know why.
Here are intersting parts from the above lawsuit:
...
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE RULES OF THE INVESTMENT INDUSTRY REGULATORY ORGANIZATION OF CANADA AND RUSSELL WADDINGTON
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PART I – INTRODUCTION
1. The Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) will issue a Notice of Application to announce that it will hold a settlement hearing to consider whether, pursuant to Section 8215 of the Consolidated Enforcement, Examination and Approval Rules of IIROC, a hearing panel (Hearing Panel) should accept the settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) entered into between the staff of IIROC (Staff) and Russell Waddington (the Respondent).
PART II – JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION
2. Staff and the Respondent jointly recommend that the Hearing Panel accept this Settlement Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set out below.
PART III – AGREED FACTS
3. For the purposes of this Settlement Agreement, the Respondent agrees with the facts as set out in Part III of this Settlement Agreement. Overview
4. Between October 2014 and December 2014, the Respondent entered orders that he intended to execute (bona fide orders) on one side of the market. He simultaneously placed orders that he did not intend to execute (non-bona fide orders) on the other side of 2 the market in order to induce other market participants to react and trade with one of his bona fide orders at an artificial price. This practice is commonly known as “layering”.
5. The Respondent’s trading constituted a contravention of Universal Market Integrity Rules (UMIR) 2.2(2) and Policy 2.2 which, among other things, prohibit the entering of nonbona fide orders. Schedule “A” sets out the text of the relevant UMIR requirements.
The Respondent’s Work History:
6. Mackie Research Capital Corporation (Mackie) is registered as an investment dealer and is a Participant under UMIR.
7. The Respondent began working in the securities industry in 1979.
8. Since December 2010 the Respondent has worked as a proprietary trader at Mackie and is registered as a Trader. The Respondent’s Compensation
9. At all material times, on a monthly basis, Mackie paid the Respondent 60% of any profits that his proprietary account generated. The Respondent was responsible for any losses which he incurred.
10. From July 2014 to October 2014, the Respondent did not receive any compensation from Mackie because he had incurred trading losses.
September 2014 Gatekeeper Report:
11. The TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV) has a pre-open session that runs from 7:00 a.m. until the opening of the market at 9:30 a.m. EST. During the pre-open session order entry is allowed but trades do not occur.
12. On or about September 15, 2014, Mackie filed a Gatekeeper Report with IIROC. The report indicated that the Respondent’s order entry in the pre-open session had triggered an internal alert at Mackie. As a result, Mackie’s Chief Compliance Officer directed the Respondent to cease entering and then canceling orders during the pre-open session.
The Respondent’s Layering Activity:
13. On seven days between October 2014 and December 2014 during the pre-open session of the TSXV, the Respondent entered large volume non-bona fide orders on one side of the market in relation to his pre-existing position on the other side of the market (the Trading 3 Activity). He would then amend or cancel these large orders immediately after he liquidated his pre-existing long position or covered his pre-existing short position.
14. The Respondent’s non-bona fide orders created a false or misleading appearance of activity. 15. The Trading Activity occurred in the following five TSXV listed securities on the following seven days:
Day / Security:
October 15, 2014 Poet Technologies Inc.
October 17, 2014 Taipan Resources Inc.
October 24, 2014 Sprylogics International Corp.
October 27, 2014 Sprylogics International Corp.
October 29, 2014 Sprylogics International Corp.
December 17, 2014 Patient Home Monitoring Corp.
December 31, 2014 Theralase Technologies Inc.
16. The Respondent did not have Marketplace Trading Obligations for any of the listed securities in question.
17. In five instances, the Respondent’s non-bona fide orders were entered on the bid side and in two instances, on the ask side.
Trading in Sprylogics International Corp. on October 29, 2014
18. The Respondent’s trading activity in the shares of Sprylogics International Corp. (SPY) on October 29, 2014 is representative of the Trading Activity.
19. The Respondent began the trading day holding 7,500 shares of SPY at an average cost of $0.3866 and he had the following three open buy orders that had been entered on the previous trading day:
• 3,000 shares at $0.400;
• 1,000 shares at $0.400; and
• 5,000 shares at $0.395.
20. At 08:17:35 the national best bid for shares of SPY was $0.410 and the national best offer was $0.420.
etc ...
33. By engaging in the conduct described above, the Respondent committed the following contravention of IIROC’s Rules:
Between October 2014 and December 2014, the Respondent, entered orders that he ought reasonably to have known would create, or could reasonably be expected to create, a false or misleading appearance of trading activity in or interest in the purchase or sale of securities or an artificial price for securities, contrary to UMIR 2.2(2) and UMIR Policy 2.2, for which he is liable under UMIR 10.4(1).
PART V – TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
34. The Respondent agrees to the following sanctions and costs:
a) payment of a $10,000 fine;
b) a suspension from approval in any capacity from August 1, 2017 to September 1, 2017; and
c) payment of $1,000 in costs to IIROC.
etc ...