THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION Sample Clauses
The "Respondent’s Position" clause defines the section of a legal document or dispute process where the respondent formally states their response to the claims or allegations made by the other party. In practice, this clause outlines the respondent’s version of the facts, any defenses or counterclaims, and may include supporting evidence or arguments. Its core function is to ensure that the respondent’s perspective is clearly articulated and officially recorded, promoting fairness and transparency in the resolution process.
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. 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.
v. Discount Rate
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 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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. 263. The Respondent submits that the costs projected by the Investors are “significantly understated” and are different from the ones presented by Bilcon of Nova Scotia to the JRP.348 264. Concerning labor and other operating costs, the Respondent argues that the Investors’ estimation is based on a wrong premise, as the Investors Moreover, some relevant operating costs are missing from ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ DCF model. As a result, the Respondent submits that additional capital and operating costs resulting from the increasing number of operating hours and labor must be incorporated into the DCF calculation.350 In particular, the Respondent argues that approximate costs of C$ must be added into the calculation.351
iv. Projected Shipping Costs
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. 34. Prior to June 2006, the Respondent had never worked in the securities industry. When he became registered with Sun Life, he states that he came under the tutelage and supervision of ▇▇▇▇▇. The Respondent states that, as their professional relationship grew, so too did their personal relationship; ▇▇▇▇▇, who served as a minister at the church where the Respondent and his family attended, baptized the Respondent’s son.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. The Respondent has been in the mutual fund industry for over 35 years. Prior to this investigation, the Respondent has never been disciplined by the MFDA.
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. 121. The Respondent agrees with the Investors’ assertion that the Award on Jurisdiction and Liability has res judicata effect but objects to “the erroneous characterization by the Claimants and ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the issues actually decided in the Award.”67 In this regard, the Respondent criticizes International Law Association (▇▇▇), “Interim Report: Res Judicata and Arbitration” (Berlin Conference 2004), pp. 3-4, 11 (Ex. CA-359). 64 Investors’ Reply, paras. 317-330, referring to Waste Management Inc. v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3), Decision on Mexico’s Preliminary Objection concerning the Previous Proceedings, 26 June 2002, para. 39 (Ex. CA-349); ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, A Common Law of International Adjudication, p. 155 (2007) (Ex. CA-350); Kinnear, Finality and Enforcement of an Award, March 2008 Supplement, at p. 1136.3 (Ex. CA-351); Company General of the Orinoco Case, Award, 31 July 1905, 10 UNRIAA 184, p. 276 (Ex. CA-352); Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (ICJ Reports 2002), Judgement, 10 October 2002 (Ex. CA-379); United Kingdom v. France, (1977, 1978) 18 R.I.A.A. 3,
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION. The Respondent has been in the financial services industry for many years and has not been the subject of any prior client complaints and has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary review. There is no evidence that he did not act in the best interests of his clients, except for the impugned transactions described above.