The Respondent must familiarise itself with the relevant provisions of the RTI Act dealing with the requirements for disclosure of information by agencies, and the grounds on which access to information may be refused.
The Respondent. (a) oversaw the roles performed by the portfolio advisor2 and the Fund Administrator in the administration of the Future Growth Funds;
(b) established and maintained a Future Growth Funds website;
(c) directed other third party service providers such as the lawyers and auditors of the Future Growth Funds;
(d) corresponded with securities regulators such as the BVI Financial Services Commission;
(e) attended to some of the business requirements of the Future Growth Funds from the ASL office such as correspondence and telephone calls; and
(f) received management fees paid out by the Future Growth Funds.
The Respondent. 2, 1. FC Köln, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned compensation.
The Respondent. 29. The Respondent filed the following prayers for relief:
1. to reject all the requests and claims of the Appellant,
2. to confirm the decision of the Single Judge of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee on 22.04.2015,
3. to order the costs of the arbitration to be borne by Xx Xxxxx SFC,
4. to order Xx Xxxxx SFC to pay all the legal costs of the Trabzonspor A.Ş in connection with this arbitration”.
30. The Respondent’s submissions, in essence, may be summarized as follows: - According to the jurisprudence of the CAS (e.g. 2012/A/2707), there is no legal obstacle which prevents the clubs from agreeing that the new club, apart from paying the transfer fee, additionally bears the solidarity contribution. Therefore, the Agreement shall be considered valid. - The Agreement clearly states that the payment is a “net” payment. Furthermore, Xx Xxxxx is an experienced club regarding international transfers and shall be considered sufficiently professional to negotiate a transfer fee. - The principle of “in dubio contra stipulatorem” will only apply if a contract is not clearly drafted. In the case at hand the clause regarding the transfer fee does not leave any room for interpretation, the principle of “in dubio contra stipulatorem” should not apply. - With respect to the payment in the amount of EUR 500,000 and EUR 50,000 per month, the Respondent pointed out that, by rejecting its claim for payment in the amount of EUR 50,000 per month, the penalty aspect of the fee has already been reduced in the Appealed Decision.
The Respondent. 34. The Respondent’s submissions, in essence, may be summarized as follows: - In the Respondent’s view the three legal questions for analysis are: (1) whether Article 5 of the Termination Agreement is a “penalty clause”, (2) if it is, is it valid and is the amount specified therein due under the applicable Swiss law, and (3) if the clause is valid and the amount is due, is the latter subject to reduction for being excessive? - The Respondent considers that the DRC judges were correct in their analysis that Article 5 of the Termination Agreement was not intended to penalize the Player, but rather to give rise to an obligation that was already established in the underlying Contract, namely three monthly salaries; - The negotiations leading to the Termination Agreement made it clear that the Player would not give up amounts the he considered were owed to him under the Contract if the agreed-upon payment schedule was not respected, which resulted in the wording of Article 5. The amount payable thereunder was a condition sine qua non for the execution of the Termination Agreement; - The fact that at the time of conclusion of the Termination Agreement the Appellant had failed to pay the Respondent more than three months’ worth of salary meant that the Respondent had the right to terminate the Contract with just cause and claim the entire amount owed to him at the time (totaling twelve monthly salaries or EUR 156,000). Instead, he demonstrated good faith by agreeing to payment of three salaries or EUR 39,000 in the event of delayed payment; - The Appellant, having negotiated the clause in Article 5 of the Termination Agreement, is estopped from claiming that the clause is void according to the principle of venire contra factum proprium; - Finally, even if the clause is to be considered a penalty clause, it is still valid given its proportionate and reasonable amount under Swiss law and CAS case law; - Article 160 para. 2 SCO requires that performance be expressly accepted without reservation. The Appellant has failed to meet its burden of proof in this respect as it has not adduced any evidence supporting its allegation that the Respondent had accepted performance; - The amount is not subject to reduction for being excessive in light of its reasonable and proportionate nature well within the bounds of CAS case law. The relevant test being that the amount of a penalty clause needs to offend the sense of justice and equity to be deemed excessive, this is not the ca...
The Respondent. 5. Ms Xxx is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (“ICAEW”).
6. Ms Xxx qualified as a Chartered Accountant in September 2007. At all material times she was employed by the audit firm as a senior manager.
The Respondent. Applicant to receive the balance of US $ 20, 000-00 of the sum deposited in the interest bearing account, and accrued interest thereon from the 21st January, 2004, to date ofwithdrawal.
The Respondent. IG is registered in Ontario and Manitoba as an investment counsel and portfolio manager and is responsible for the management of in excess of 140 mutual funds (“IG Funds”) with assets under management of approximately $42.5 billion (as of June 30, 2004). The distributor of IG Funds is Investor Group Financial Services Inc., except in Quebec where the distributor is Les Services Investors Limitée, (collectively, the “Distributor”). IG and the Distributor are affiliated through their common ownership by Investors Group Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of IGM Financial Inc. (“IGMFI”). The shares of IGMFI are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol “IGI”. The companies comprising Investors Group have an integrated management structure and many of the sales, compliance, and operational staff provide services to both IG and the Distributor. In this Settlement Agreement, “Investors Group” means, collectively, IGMFI, IG and the Distributor.
The Respondent. Respondent Insilco is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 000 Xxxxx Xxxxx X, Xxx 0000, Xxxxxx, Xxxx, 00000.
The Respondent. Since January 2014, Xxxxxxx has been an IIROC Registrant and a Portfolio Manager with Cumberland Wealth Management Inc. (“Cumberland”), an IIROC Dealer Member Firm.
