THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. Since January 2016 the Respondent no longer conducts his general practice as set out in paragraphs 6 to 8 of this Agreement and is conducting client transactions in accordance with IG’s policies and procedures.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 19. On December 7, 2007, the Respondent provided the Ontario Securities Commission with an affidavit in which he admitted to the falsification of approximately 10 client KYC forms. On October 7, 2008, the Respondent attended an interview with Staff of the MFDA and identified 11 KYC forms which he had falsified.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 21. During the period between May 2003 and July 2004, Investors Group adopted additional practices and procedures to prevent and detect market timing that could reasonably be expected to be harmful to the IG Funds and unitholders of IG Funds.
22. Investors Group’s current monitoring of trades in IG Funds indicates that the policies and procedures that have been implemented have served to eliminate any potential adverse impact of frequent trading market timing.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 22. The Respondent states that client MB had been a close friend since childhood.
23. The Respondent is a single mother. The Respondent states that she borrowed the monies from client MB to address a financing issue relating to her home (see paragraph 10 above). The Respondent states that client MB was aware of the Respondent’s situation and loaned monies to assist the Respondent.
24. The Respondent states that, at about same time, her personal circumstances worsened as a result of domestic abuse which resulted in the involvement of the police, the Children’s Aid Society, and health care providers.
25. Before accepting the loan, the Respondent discussed with her regional director at Investors Group that she intended to borrow money from a client. The Respondent and the regional director agreed that the Respondent would need to transfer the client to another Approved Person prior to borrowing any monies. The Respondent states that because of the strain from the circumstances set out in paragraph 24, she forgot to inform Investors Group that she was proceeding with borrowing monies from client MB or transfer the client to another Approved Person.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 23. The following are representations made by the Respondent. Staff is unable to confirm or verify the accuracy of the representations:
a) The Respondent states that she shared the commissions she received with three of the four individuals (excluding Z.C.) in respect of whom she referred the MP Global Debentures.
b) The Respondent states that she was hired by Xxxx to work as an in-house accountant on behalf of MP Global. At Xxxx’x suggestion, knowing that the Respondent had been previously registered by PFSL Investments Canada Inc., she sought and obtained registration as a mutual fund salesperson with Info Financial. Despite being so registered, the Respondent states that she never engaged in any securities related business on behalf of Info Financial.
c) At the time when she was hired by Xxxx to work as an accountant at MP Global Financial, the Respondent states that Xxxx advised that in addition to her salary of $2000 per month as an accountant, she could also earn referral fees by selling MP Global.
d) The Respondent states that the four individuals who the Respondent referred to MP Global were family and friends of the Respondent. Each individual asked the Respondent if she knew of an investment vehicle that may provide a greater return than e.g.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 242. The Respondent’s second jurisdictional objection arises from NAFTA Article 1116(2), which reads: An investor may not make a claim if more than three years have elapsed from the date on which the investor first acquired, or should have first acquired, knowledge of the alleged breach and knowledge that the investor has incurred loss or damage.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 25. During the period between May 2003 and July 2004, Investors Group adopted additional practices and procedures to prevent and detect market timing that could reasonably be expected to be harmful to the I.G. Funds and unitholders of the I.G. Funds.
26. Investors Group’s current monitoring of trades in the I.G. Funds indicates that the policies and procedures that have been implemented have served to eliminate any potential adverse impact of frequent trading market timing.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 28. The Respondent believed that he could not correct the ICAN Form Deficiency within the time period specified by the BCO due to client JP’s work schedule.
29. The Respondent, who was a relatively inexperienced employee, had encountered a difficult professional relationship for the first time in his career with the BCO. Due to that difficult relationship, he believed that if he did not correct the ICAN Form Deficiency within the specified time period, he would suffer negative consequences to his employment.
30. The Respondent takes responsibility for his actions and will not handle such situations in a similar manner in the future.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 28. The Respondent states that he maintained and used blank or partially completed pre- signed forms to process transactions in client accounts and delayed, at his discretion, the processing of transactions in client accounts because he was working close to 50 hours a week and was unable to process the trades on the same day that he had met with the client(s). The Respondent states that he informed Xxxxxxxxxx verbally about difficulties he was having with his workload, the “pending” files and the delayed transactions, but did not indicate to Credential the extent and severity to which he had fallen behind with his work.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 32. The Respondent and Xxxxxxx were diligent in preventing any threat of harm to clients by verifying, in the ordinary course, that all impugned payments (as set out above) would not create an illiquid position for the Member.
33. At all material times, the Respondent was diligent in ensuring that it maintained a positive RAC and profit/loss ratio.
34. There were no client losses and no client complaints as a result of the misconduct admitted to herein.
35. The Respondent has not previously been the subject of an MFDA disciplinary proceeding.
