Here is an exerpt frpm the recent Ontario Securities Commission ruling. The vapid announcement offered won't do.

For example, what were the alisases used (for a start) An apology might also be appreciated............

15. According to their website (www.agoracom.com), Agoracom “caters to the IR and marketing needs of small and micro cap public companies trading on the TSX [and] TSX Venture…”. Agoracom offers pricing models for its clients which incorporate a monthly fee and stock options equalling the greater of 250,000 shares or 0.5% of a company’s fully diluted outstanding share total at current prices.

16. Agoracom’s online content includes webcasts, podcasts, and blogs. Perusal of www.agoracom.com is free and open to the public. Visitors are directed to client and non-client issuer “hubs” created and maintained by Agoracom. Among the features available on a specific company’s hub is a discussion forum, relating to the issuers’ securities.

17. Agoracom’s representatives serviced the client hubs by moderating their discussion forums and posting information and news to the forums. In order to post comments on the discussion forums, users are required to create a username and provide an e-mail address.

18. Tsiolis and Kondakos required their representatives, as part of their daily responsibilities, to post anonymously to some client forums using aliases. To post messages anonymously, the representatives created fictitious usernames and posed as investors blending in with other users, investors and interested persons. Representatives had between 40-50 aliases (some had up to 200) and were required to make up to 2 posts per hub per day or risk having their pay docked. On occasion, Agoracom staff conversed with themselves on the forums using different aliases.

19. During the Material Time:

1. more than 24,000 alias posts were created from within Agoracom on client and non-client hubs;
2. more than 670 alias user names were created by representatives of Agoracom and used on client and non-client hubs;
3. alias posts originated from Tsiolis’ residence; and
4. posts by Agoracom representatives, using their aliases, were occasionally promotional and promoted purchasing and/or holding stock.

20. Neither the public users nor the majority of Agoracom’s clients were aware that representatives of Agoracom were posting on their hubs using aliases. In some cases, Agoracom reported the number of posts and shareholder inquiries answered by Agoracom’s representatives to clients on a monthly basis, and failed to disclose that a portion of the posts and shareholder inquiries were created by Agoracom’s own representatives. For certain clients, alias posts by Agoracom’s representatives represented a significant proportion of the postings within the forum.

21. The Respondents also took steps to actively conceal the alias posting activity by its representatives. In March 2009, when the business development representative, Scott Purkis, revealed that he was an Agoracom representative posting with an alias, the Respondents posted an “Official Statement” stating that these actions were carried out by a single individual and that Agoracom would be taking steps within next sixty (60) days to ensure that this would never happen again. The message posted by the Respondents to the public in relation to Purkis’ alias postings was misleading given that Tsiolis and Kondakos knew and instructed many representatives to create and use multiple aliases to post on several of the client forums. In addition, Tsiolis and Kondakos were aware that representatives continued to post using aliases after this Statement was released.

22. The posting activity described above, mandated by the Respondents, was undertaken, in part, to create an appearance of greater interest in the securities of some of Agoracom’s clients.

IV. INTERCEPTION OF PRIVATE MESSAGES

23. Another feature available on the Agoracom platform is a “private messaging” service which, according to Agoracom’s web site, allows users to have “direct and private contact with other Agoracom members.”

24. From July 2008 to February 2009, Kondakos intercepted private messages sent between public users for the purpose of gathering information about reporting issuers and issuers, in which he was personally invested.

25. Kondakos forwarded private messages to a personal friend who was not associated with Agoracom and provided this individual with administrative access to the Agoracom website. This individual also intercepted private messages between public users, and forwarded these private messages to Kondakos.

26. By engaging in the conduct described above, the Respondents have acted contrary to the public interest.