The Respondent Sample Clauses

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. 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. 2, 1. FC Köln, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned compensation.

The Respondent. The Respondent commenced his employment in the securities industry in 2001. He worked for three Member firms before commencing employment with Credential in 2008. He remained employed with Credential until August 13, 2010 when he was dismissed for cause as a result of the matters described herein. He is not currently employed in a registered capacity in the securities industry.

The Respondent together with any entity that is an Affiliate directly or indirectly controlled by the Respondent, and more

The Respondent.  Name and address of respondent.  Risk Factors  Whether the respondent is an adult or juvenile.  Date and location of first contact (home/county hall)  Date and location of interview (home/county hall)  Details of other agencies involved.  Name of Garda / Social Worker / NGO’s/Other Professionals if relevant.  Full details of investigation.  Details of case disposal and updates to respondent.

The Respondent has cooperated fully with Staff during the course of the investigation, and by agreeing to this settlement, has avoided the need for a contested hearing on the merits. V. CONTRAVENTIONS

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 a) did not process any of the LOD described above at paragraph 17 through the facilities of the Member; and b) did not obtain approval from his branch manager prior to submitting the LOD directly to mutual fund companies.

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.