Initial Decision Release No. 1338

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-18492

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

In the Matter of

Play La Inc. and

Titan Trading Analytics, Inc.

Initial Decision of Default

December 19, 2018

Appearances: David S. Frye, for the Division of Enforcement, 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Before: Cameron Elliot, Administrative Law Judge

SUMMARY

This initial decision revokes the registration of the registered securities 

of Respondents Play La Inc. and Titan Trading Analytics, Inc., due to their

failures to timely file required periodic reports with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission.

INTRODUCTION

On May 17, 2018, the Commission issued an order instituting 

proceedings (OIP) pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934. The OIP alleges that each Respondent has a class of securities 

registered with the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g) and 

is delinquent in its periodic filings. 

This matter was assigned to me on September 12, 2018. Pending Admin. 

Proc., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release No. 5955, 2018 SEC LEXIS 2264, at *2-3 

(ALJ Sept. 12, 2018). Respondents were directed to submit proposals for the 

conduct of further proceedings. Play La Inc., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release 

No. 6058, 2018 SEC LEXIS 2521, at *1 (ALJ Sept. 21, 2018). Neither did. 
2

Previously, I independently reviewed the evidence submitted by the 

Division and determined that Titan Trading Analytics, Inc., was served with 

the OIP on May 29, 2018, Play La Inc., Admin. Proc. Rulings Release 

No. 6331, 2018 SEC LEXIS 3226, at *2 (ALJ Nov. 15, 2018), and Play La Inc. 

was served on September 6, 2018, Admin. Proc. Rulings Release No. 6348, 

2018 SEC LEXIS 3277 (ALJ Nov. 20, 2018). Because Respondents failed to 

timely answer, I ordered them to show cause why the registration of their

securities should not be revoked by default due to their failures to file 

answers or otherwise defend this proceeding. To date, Respondents have

failed to answer, submit proposals for the conduct of further proceedings, 

respond to the show cause order, or otherwise defend this proceeding.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Respondents are in default for failing to file answers, file proposals for 

the conduct of further proceedings, or otherwise defend the proceeding. See

OIP at 3; 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.155(a)(2), .220(f); Pending Admin. Proc., 2018 SEC 

LEXIS 2058, at *4. Accordingly, as authorized by Rule of Practice 155(a), 17 

C.F.R. § 201.155(a), I find the following allegations in the OIP to be true.

Play La Inc., Central Index Key (CIK) No. 1378553 and ticker symbol 

PLLAF, is a British Virgin Islands corporation located in Road Town, Tortola, 

British Virgin Islands, with a class of securities registered with the 

Commission pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(g). The company is 

delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any 

periodic reports since it filed a Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 

2014. As of May 10, 2018, the company’s common stock was quoted on OTC 

Link operated by OTC Markets Group Inc., had three market makers, and 

was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).

Titan Trading Analytics, Inc., CIK No. 1076639 and ticker symbol 

TITAF, is a British Columbia corporation located in Edmonton, Alberta, 

Canada, with a class of securities registered with the Commission pursuant 

to Exchange Act Section 12(g). The company is delinquent in its periodic 

filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it 

filed a Form 20-F for the period ended October 31, 2012, which reported a net 

loss of $2,269,669 Canadian for the prior twelve months. As of May 10, 2018, 

the company’s common shares were quoted on OTC Link, had six market 

makers, and were eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule

15c2-11(f)(3).

In addition to their repeated failures to timely file periodic reports, 

Respondents failed to heed delinquency letters sent to them by the 

Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance requesting compliance with 
3

their periodic filing obligations or, through their failures to maintain valid 

addresses on file with the Commission as required by Commission rules, did 

not receive such letters.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Exchange Act Section 13(a) and the rules promulgated thereunder 

require issuers of securities registered pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 

to file with the Commission current and accurate information in periodic 

reports. Specifically, Rule 13a-1 requires issuers to file annual reports, and 

Rule 13a-13 requires domestic issuers to file quarterly reports. See 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 240.13a-1, .13a-13. Compliance with these reporting requirements is 

mandatory. America’s Sports Voice, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 55511, 

2007 SEC LEXIS 1241, at *12 (Mar. 22, 2007), recons. denied, Exchange Act 

Release No. 55867, 2007 SEC LEXIS 1239 (June 6, 2007). Scienter is not 

required to establish violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a1 and 13a-13. See SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 740-41 (2d Cir. 1998); SEC 

v. Wills, 472 F. Supp. 1250, 1268 (D.D.C. 1978). Respondents failed to timely 

file periodic reports. As a result, Respondents violated Exchange Act Section 

13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13.

SANCTION

Under Exchange Act Section 12(j), the Commission is authorized, “as it 

deems necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors,” to revoke the 

registration of a security or suspend its registration for a period not 

exceeding twelve months if it finds, after notice and an opportunity for 

hearing, that the issuer of the security has failed to comply with any 

provision of the Exchange Act or rules thereunder. In determining what 

sanctions will adequately protect investors, the Commission “consider[s], 

among other things, the seriousness of the issuer’s violations, the isolated or 

recurrent nature of the violations, the degree of culpability involved, the 

extent of the issuer’s efforts to remedy its past violations and ensure future 

compliance, and the credibility of its assurances, if any, against further 

violations.” Gateway Int’l Holdings, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 53907, 

2006 SEC LEXIS 1288, at *19-20 (May 31, 2006).

Respondents’ failures to file required periodic reports are serious because 

the failures constitute violations of a central provision of the Exchange Act. 

The purpose of periodic reporting is “to supply investors with current and 

accurate financial information about an issuer so that they may make sound 

[investment] decisions.” Gateway, 2006 SEC LEXIS 1288, at *26. The 

reporting requirements are the primary tool that Congress “fashioned for the 

protection of investors from negligent, careless, and deliberate 
4

misrepresentations” in the sale of securities. Eagletech Commc’ns, Inc., 

Exchange Act Release No. 54095, 2006 SEC LEXIS 1534, at *12 (July 5, 

2006) (quoting SEC v. Beisinger Indus. Corp., 552 F.2d 15, 18 (1st Cir. 1977)). 

Respondents’ violations are also recurrent. Play La Inc. repeatedly failed to 

file periodic reports for nearly four years, and Titan Trading Analytics, Inc., 

failed to do so for more than six years. See Nature’s Sunshine Prods., Inc., 

Exchange Act Release No. 59268, 2009 SEC LEXIS 81, at *20 (Jan. 21, 2009) 

(failing to file seven required periodic reports due over a two-year period is 

recurrent); Impax Labs., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 57864, 2008 SEC 

LEXIS 1197, at *25-26 (May 23, 2008) (respondent’s failure to make eight 

filings over an eighteen-month period considered recurrent). Respondents

are culpable because they knew or should have known about the reporting 

requirements. They further failed to heed the delinquency letters sent to 

them by the Division of Corporation Finance. Even if Respondents did not 

receive such letters due to their failures to maintain valid addresses on file 

with the Commission as required by Commission rules, the other factors 

weigh in favor of revocation, and scienter is not necessary to establish 

grounds for revocation. See China-Biotics, Inc., Exchange Act Release 

No. 70800, 2013 SEC LEXIS 3451, at *37 & n.60 (Nov. 4, 2013). In any 

event, there is no indication that their violations were inadvertent or 

accidental. Id. Finally, Respondents have not answered the OIP, submitted 

proposals for the further conduct of this proceeding, responded to the show 

cause order, or otherwise participated in the proceeding to address whether 

they have made any efforts to remedy their past violations, and have made no 

assurances against further violations.

Considering these delinquencies, it is necessary and appropriate for the 

protection of investors to revoke the registration of each class of Respondents’ 

registered securities.

ORDER

It is ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934, the registrations of each class of registered securities 

of Respondents Play La Inc. and Titan Trading Analytics, Inc., are hereby 

REVOKED.1

 

1 This order applies to all classes of Respondents’ securities registered 

under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, whether or not such securities are 

specifically identified by ticker symbol or otherwise in this initial decision.
5

This initial decision shall become effective in accordance with and 

subject to the provisions of Rule 360, 17 C.F.R. § 201.360. Pursuant to that 

rule, a party may file a petition for review of this initial decision within 

twenty-one days after service of the initial decision. A party may also file a 

motion to correct a manifest error of fact within ten days of the initial 

decision, pursuant to Rule 111, 17 C.F.R. § 201.111(h). If a motion to correct 

a manifest error of fact is filed by a party, then a party shall have twenty-one 

days to file a petition for review from the date of the undersigned’s order 

resolving such motion to correct a manifest error of fact.

Also pursuant to Rule 360, this initial decision will not become final until 

the Commission enters an order of finality. 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(d). The 

Commission will enter an order of finality unless a party files a petition for 

review or a motion to correct a manifest error of fact or the Commission 

determines on its own initiative to review the initial decision as to a party. 

Id. If any of these events occur, the initial decision shall not become final as 

to that party. Id.

A respondent may move to set aside a default. Rule 155(b) permits the 

Commission, at any time, to set aside a default for good cause, to prevent 

injustice and on such conditions as may be appropriate. 17 C.F.R. 

§ 201.155(b). A motion to set aside a default shall be made within a

reasonable time, state the reasons for the failure to appear or defend, and 

specify the nature of the proposed defense in the proceeding. Id.

_______________________________

Cameron Elliot

Administrative Law Judge