CIRO hands Toronto dealer exec rare permanent UDP ban after US$1.4 million loss

Regulator slaps dealer with rare permanent leadership ban and nearly $2 million in penalties

CIRO hands Toronto dealer exec rare permanent UDP ban after US$1.4 million loss

A Toronto dealer executive has been hit with one of CIRO’s tougher recent enforcement outcomes, after leveraged ETF trading and capital reporting failures left more than US$1.4m in losses and triggered a permanent bar from serving as Ultimate Designated Person (UDP). 

Following an August 11, 2025 sanctions hearing under the Investment Dealer and Partially Consolidated (IDPC) Rules, a Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) hearing panel released its sanctions decision on February 3, 2026 in the matter of Peter Michael Deeb and Hampton Securities Ltd. (Hampton), in Re Deeb and Hampton 2026 CIRO 07, as per its press release.

The decision followed an April 14, 2025 liability ruling in Re Hampton & Deeb 2025 CIRO 18. 

For Peter Michael Deeb, the panel ordered: 

  • a $500,000 fine 
  • disgorgement of $1.225m 
  • a one‑year suspension from approval as a Registered Representative in any capacity with any Dealer Member or Regulated Person 
  • a three‑year ban on serving or being approved as an executive or supervisor with any Dealer Member, its subsidiaries or related entities (with narrow exceptions) 
  • a permanent bar from ever serving or being registered as a UDP with any Dealer Member, its subsidiaries or related entities 
  • costs of $230,000 

For Hampton, the panel imposed: 

  • a $250,000 fine 
  • costs of $20,000 
  • a requirement to appoint a new CEO and UDP within 90 days 
  • monthly board reports from the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) on compliance issues until a new UDP is in place 
  • monthly board reports from the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) on financial compliance concerns over the same period 
  • a three‑year prohibition on delegating any supervisory tasks or procedures to Deeb 

The sanctions stem from three upheld contraventions. 

First, the panel found that between January and April 2020, Deeb engaged in a trading practice in client and firm inventory accounts that breached IDPC Rule 1400.  

He used Hampton’s US dollar average price account to trade ProShares UltraPro S&P500 (UPRO), a leveraged ETF, in circumstances where: 

  • a non‑arm’s length client account did not have enough margin to support the trading 
  • large UPRO positions and losses sat unallocated in the dealer account while NBIN, Hampton’s carrying broker, bore the credit risk 
  • after February 24, 2020, UPRO trades remained in the dealer account, and a sharp market drop led to a loss of more than $1.9m, followed by a US$1.419m realized loss when NBIN liquidated the position 

The panel described this pattern as improper access to credit and found that it fell below the high standards of ethics and conduct required of a regulated person. 

Second, the panel found that Hampton failed to keep and maintain a proper system of books and records and to provide records of trading activity, contrary to Dealer Member Rules 17.2 and 200.  

CIRO staff could not obtain basic audit‑trail documents for the UPRO trading from Hampton and had to reconstruct the activity using records from NBIN and Credit Suisse.  

The panel also found that Hampton’s Monthly Financial Reports for February and March 2020 did not reflect the UPRO losses and related margin, and that the firm would have been risk adjusted capital (RAC) negative for much of that period if it had done so. 

Third, the panel concluded that between January and September 2020, Deeb failed to promote compliance by Hampton with regulatory requirements, in breach of Dealer Member Rule 38.5.  

As Hampton’s UDP, Registered Representative and Acting Chief Compliance Officer between March and September 2020, he was responsible for supervising activities directed toward compliance and for promoting a culture of compliance. 

A later Business Conduct Compliance examination identified multiple significant and repeat deficiencies across Hampton’s supervision, governance and record‑keeping.  

Combined with the trading, capital and books‑and‑records findings, the panel held that Deeb did not meet his UDP obligations and that his conduct was not acceptable for someone expected to “set the tone from the top.” 

LATEST NEWS