Decisions

Robert John Chapman [Decision]

BCSECCOM #:
Document Type:
Decision
Published Date:
1989-12-11
Effective Date:
1989-12-11
Details:


Chapman (Re)
IN THE MATTER OF the Securities Act, S.B.C. 1985, c. 83
AND IN THE MATTER OF Robert John Chapman
Order
D.M. Hyndman, E. Lien, J. McCall
December 11, 1989

ORDER:-- WHEREAS on April 17, 1989, the Superintendent of Brokers issued temporary orders under what were then sections 145(2) and 145.1(2) of the Securities Act (the "Act") against Robert John Chapman ("Chapman") and gave notice of a hearing to be held before the British Columbia Securities Commission on April 28, 1989 to give Chapman an opportunity to be heard before the Commission determined whether orders should be made under what are now sections 144(1)(c) and (d) and 154.2 of the Act;

AND WHEREAS Chapman was served with the original orders and notice of hearing on April 18, 1989;

AND WHEREAS the hearing was adjourned generally by consent;

AND WHEREAS on October 31, 1989, a hearing was held before the Commission at which Chapman did not appear and at which the Superintendent presented oral and documentary evidence;

AND WHEREAS the evidence presented included the following:

1.Chapman resided in British Columbia between February and May 1989, during which time he was employed by Gulf Titanium Ltd. in the capacity of Chief Economist and Director of National and International Public Relations;
2.Chapman wrote an article in the March 1989 edition of a publication called the "Gary Allen Report" in which he recommended Gulf Titanium shares and offered to provide advice on securities portfolios; and
3.Chapman was not registered as an adviser under section 20 of the Act;
AND WHEREAS the Commission has determined that Chapman acted in the capacity of securities adviser when not registered to do so;

AND WHEREAS the evidence included particulars of certain orders issued against Chapman in the United States of America, including the following:

1.On February 4, 1986 the Comptroller of the State of Florida issued a Cease and Desist Order against Chapman for selling unregistered securities when not a registered person;
2.On February 2, 1987, the Banking Commissioner of the State of Connecticut issued an Order to Cease and Desist against Chapman for selling securities when not registered as a broker-dealer;
3.On March 17, 1987, the Director of the Alabama Securities Commission issued a temporary Cease and Desist order against Chapman for selling securities when not registered as a securities salesman;
4.On June 15, 1987, the Commissioner of Securities for the State of Wisconsin issued an Order of Prohibition and Revocation against Chapman for offering unregistered securities for sale;
5.On May 18, 1988, the Director of the Corporation and Securities Bureau of the State of Michigan issued a Final Order to Revoke and Deny Exemption and to Cease and Desist for transacting business as an agent without being registered and for omitting to state material facts in connection with the offer and sale of securities;
6.On June 10, 1988, the Director of the Division of Securities in the State of South Dakota issued an order denying agent registration against Chapman, stating that such an order was necessary for the public interest;
7.On September 22, 1988, the State Auditor and Commissioner of Securities for the State of Montana issued a Final Cease and Desist Order against Chapman for selling unregistered securities when not registered as a salesman;
8.On July 31, 1989, the Commissioner of Securities for the State of Georgia issued an Order of Prohibition against Chapman for selling securities when not registered as a securities salesman; and
9.On September 6, 1989, the Commissioner of Corporations for the State of California barred Chapman from employment with, or management or control of, any broker-dealer or investment advisor licensed by the State of California for selling unqualified securities;
NOW THEREFORE the Commission, considering it to be in the public interest, orders:

1.under section 144(1)(c) of the Act, that the exemptions described in sections 30 to 32, 55, 58, 80 or 81 of the Act do not apply to Chapman for a period of 5 years;
2.under section 144(1)(d) of the Act, that Chapman be prohibited from becoming or acting as a director or officer of any reporting issuer for a period of 10 years; and
3.under section 154.2 of the Act, that Chapman pay $1,000 for the costs of or related to the hearing.
DOUGLAS M. HYNDMAN
Chairman
EDWARD LIEN
Member
JEREMY McCALL
Member