THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION Sample Clauses

THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. The Respondent states that he has not been the subject of prior MFDA regulatory proceedings. The Respondent further states that even though no known client complaints were made as a result of the facts described in Part IV, he ought to have known that his admitted-to misconduct was in violation of MFDA Rules, Policies and By-laws. Nevertheless, he regrets his conduct and fully accepts responsibility for his actions, including the consequential penalties agreed to herein.

THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. [29] The Respondent's rebuttal to the Applicant’s position is encapsulated in the Affidavit of Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, the Founder and Director of the Respondent, filed on the 27th day of January, 2022.

THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 41. The Respondent states that at no time did he intend to mislead, hide or otherwise interfere with the Member’s regulatory obligations. 42. The Respondent states that neither TS nor KW solicited any of the clients listed in paragraph 22 to make the transactions listed therein. None of the transactions noted in paragraph 22 involved either TS or KW providing investment advice to the above noted client. 43. The Respondent further states that he reviewed the documentation related to each transaction in paragraph 22 to ensure that such transaction met the Know-your-client investment objects and risk tolerances of the affected clients. 44. Finally, the Respondent states that all of the Portfolio Summaries used information generated from the Member’s book of record.

THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. The Respondent co-operated fully with the MFDA’s investigation and prior to the departure of all the affected advisors developed robust plans for addressing the concentration issues in the accounts of the impacted clients.

THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 35. The Respondent states that he and client DH were friends and over the course of their friendship they had a number of discussions about investing in real estate. 36. In September 2009, the Respondent paid for client DH to obtain independent legal advice for the purposes of completing the mortgage transaction with the Respondent. At the suggestion of legal counsel, the parties agreed on a higher interest rate of 7.8% than the 5% initially proposed by the Respondent. 37. On or about March 30, 2011, after receiving the demand letter from client DH’s legal counsel requesting immediate payment of the outstanding $120,000, the Respondent states that he contacted client DH and advised client DH that he would continue to take steps to find financing to pay client DH’s second mortgage out in full. On this basis, the Respondent states that client DH told him that he could ignore the demand letter. 38. The Respondent states he failed to pay out client DH’s second mortgage by August 24, 2011, as agreed, because he was unable to sell the property. After relisting the property on or about December 2011, the Respondent was able to sell the property on February 21, 2012.

THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 64. The Respondents request that the Settlement Hearing panel consider the following circumstances. Staff do not object to the Respondents putting forward the circumstances set out below. 65. During the relevant period, Coinsquare was a new company in the novel and fast-evolving crypto asset industry. The Respondents obtained legal advice that the crypto assets traded on the Coinsquare Platform were not subject to Ontario securities law. Until recently, the Respondents wrongly believed that the trading activity on the Coinsquare Platform was not subject to Ontario securities law. 66. The Market Volume Function did not affect the bid-ask spread and was not designed to impact the execution price that clients received on the Coinsquare Platform. 67. Coinsquare admits that its response to the Internal Whistleblower providing information regarding the inflated trading volumes adversely affected the Internal Whistleblower’s employment and constituted a prohibited reprisal. Coinsquare was in active litigation with the Internal Whistleblower. Coinsquare’s position is that it did not terminate the Internal Whistleblower’s employment as a reprisal in response to the Internal Whistleblower providing information regarding the inflated trading volumes. 68. Coinsquare discontinued the Market Volume Function in December 2019 and has enhanced its internal controls by developing a new automated trading program that prevents the opportunity to create inflated trading volumes. 69. Coinsquare’s independent director was not aware of the Market Volume Function and the resulting inflation of trading volumes, the reprisal against the Internal Whistleblower and the failure to implement controls until December 2019, after Enforcement Staff commenced its investigation. At no time did the independent director authorize, permit or acquiesce in such conduct.

THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. ‌ 224. As noted above, the Respondent submits that, pursuant to the Investors’ obligation to mitigate their losses, the damage incurred by the Respondent’s NAFTA breaches would have been easily and effectively cured, had the Investors pursued their remedies before Canadian domestic courts. Accordingly, the Investors would be entitled to total costs of C$ 1,150,644.247 The amount proposed by the Respondent is based on the Expert Report of Xx. Xxxxxxx X. Chodorow of the Brattle Group (“Brattle Group Report”) which. The mitigation costs include: (i) legal costs in the judicial review process: C$ 77,982;248 and (ii) costs of remitting the assessment back to a newly constituted JRP: C$ 1,072,662.249 246 Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, para. 84; Hearing Transcript, 19 February 2018, p. 155, line 23 – p. 156, line 17, p. 212, line 7-10. 247 Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, paras. 97-98, referring to Xxxxx Report (Ex. RE-6); Expert Report of The Brattle Group (Xx. Xxxxxxx X. Chodorow), 9 June 2017 (“Brattle Group Report”) (Ex. RE-5). 248 Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, para. 97, citing Brattle Group Report, Table E.16 (Ex. RE-5). 249 Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, para. 98, citing Brattle Group Report, Table C.3 (Ex. RE-5).

THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. At the time of the misconduct the Respondent was 26 years old and was relatively new to the industry.

THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. ‌ 308. The Respondent submits that the Investors’ argument is based on the flawed assumption that the damages awarded to Bilcon of Nova Scotia will subsequently be paid as dividends to its shareholder, Bilcon of Delaware, and in turn be transferred to the other Investors.403 In fact, there is no guarantee that the damages paid to Bilcon of Nova Scotia will be definitely transferred as dividends to the Investors in the United States, and consequently be subject to United States tax as claimed by the Investors.404 In any event, the Respondent argues that the Investors are not entitled to compensation for damage incurred by Bilcon of Nova Scotia under NAFTA Article 1116.405 309. The Respondent adds that even if the Tribunal were to accept the Investors’ argument that the damages owed to Bilcon of Nova Scotia will be transferred as dividends to the Investors, past investment arbitration awards do not support the Investors’ request for a tax gross-up.406 The Respondent cites the awards in Mobil Investments, Ceskoslovenska, and Rusoro Mining Limited