Icoa Inc (ICOA)

[$PennyMover]

$ICOA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBE C MONTREAL FILE N°: 2022-010 DECISION N°: 2022-010-006 DATE: January 25, 2024 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE: JEAN-PIERRE CRISTEL AUTHORITY OF FINANCIAL MARKETS

Requesting party sec. RAMY KAMANE Het MOHAMED KADA MESLIRespondents and SDIT INC., joint stock company domiciled at 201- 9801, rue Cérès, in the town of Dollard-Des-Ormeaux, province of Quebec, H9B 0A8etSDÉT INC., joint stock company domiciled at 201-9801, rue Cérès, in the town of Dollard-Des-Ormeaux, province of Quebec, H9B 0A8 and 7350341 CANADA INC., domiciled at 5915, rue De Jumonville, in the city of Montreal, province of Quebec, H1M 1R2 and AURIGA ERP CONSULTING INC., domiciled at 5915, rue De Jumonville, in the city of Montreal, province of Quebec, H1M 1R2 and BANQUE TORONTO-DOMINION INC., having a place of business at 3720, boulevard des Sources, in the city of Dollard-des-Ormeaux, province of Quebec.

24]This additional extension period will allow the Authority's litigation department to continue its analysis of the investigation report and the evidence collected by the investigators as well as possibly ask the investigators to collect additional information. This additional period will also allow litigation to potentially present recommendations to the Authority's decision-makers on the follow-up to be given to this case and for them to take, in the public interest, a decision in this regard.[25] In the opinion of the Tribunal, it is important that freezing orders only continue for a period when they are absolutely necessary in the public interest. [26]Moreover, the Court recognizes the particularly complex nature of investigations related to market manipulation schemes, particularly when a multi-jurisdictional component is associated. [27]After hearing the evidence and the arguments presented to it by the parties' lawyers, the Court is of the opinion that the reasons which justified the issuance of the initial blocking orders in this case still exist and that the investigation, in the broad sense of the term, of the Authority with regard to the respondents is still ongoing.[28]Consequently, the Tribunal decides that it is in the public interest to extend until July 7, 2024, as a precautionary measure, the blocking orders currently in force in this case