Tuesday, October 16, 2018

DSC sold fund doomed no matter what * * if IIROC rules followed and enforced




Information asymmetries and investors’ assumption that those providing them personalized advice must act in their best interest means unsophisticated investors too often rely heavily on their Reps, which leaves retail investors vulnerable to exploitation. Numerous surveys confirm this unchallenged reliance on Rep recommendations. But rules and regulations exist to prevent mis-selling. As long as they are enforced, retail investors should be safe.



DSC funds pay 5% upfront commission to the dealer .Five per cent is a big chunk of change for a fund company to pay up front. In order to make the money back, the fund company needs clients in the fund for 6-7 years. It is difficult to see how responsible IIROC dealer supervisors or compliance staff would ever consider this bondage to be in the best interests of the client. Reps should not recommend DSC funds if clients plan to invest for only a short time, if they have little money and can't afford to lose any of it, or if they have a low tolerance for market/price volatility. A well-documented compliant KYC process should help keep such clients away from DSC sold mutual funds.


Existing IIROC rules require a Dealing representative to resolve conflicts -of -interest in the best interests of clients. Other rules require Reps to only make recommendations which are suitable for clients based on KYC. Mutual funds with embedded commissions create a conflict-of-interests with DSC sold funds amplifying that conflict with the outsized 5% upfront payment. So a Rep faced with deciding to sell a DSC vs. FEL (0%) fund would have to recommend FEL to address the conflicts between compensation schemes. In addition, it can be argued that the liquidity of the FEL series vs. the locked in nature of DSC funds is itself a conflict-of- interest since decreased liquidity is not in the best interests of clients.



Also, even under a lowly suitability regime product cost enters into the picture. In the case of say, Fidelity funds, the MER of the FEL series of funds is less than the identical DSC series so the FEL should win again IF Reps are resolving conflicts in the best interests of clients. While clients can switch into money market funds at no cost (except for 0-2% switch fees) because DSC funds allow switches within the same family without triggering redemption fees, the DSC redemption schedule remains. Any attempt to redeem for cash will result in a penalty. Directly recommending a DSC money market would have to be considered abusive selling as a m/m fund is intended to act as a temporary parking spot for cash and should not therefore be bound with illiquidity chains.


Furthermore, it is imprudent for Reps acting in a client’s best interests to recommend actively-managed mutual fund unless the reasonably expected return from such fund will cover the extra costs and risks typically associated with such funds. This is key, as most actively-managed funds simply are not cost-efficient if analyzed properly. If the potential closet indexing factor is considered by analyzing a fund's incremental costs in terms of Ross Miller's Active Expense Metric (see Reference), the number of cost-efficient actively-managed funds is very low.



Before processing any order, Reps. must disclose the charges the client will incur for the purchase, sell, switch or transfer, or a reasonable estimate if the actual amount is not known at the time of the disclosure. We expect that such disclosure may be inadequate unless the Rep. informs the client of the FEL series or other alternatives. If the disclosure is balanced and fair, we would however expect a rational investor to reject the DSC series.



The accurate collection of the client’s time horizon is an essential component of the KYC process and it is imperative that Reps/supervisors consider this information when assessing suitability .If time horizon is less than 7 years or client is older than say 65 then it may not be suitable to lock a client into a fund for up to 7 years. Regardless of age, there is no logical justification for exposing a client to early redemption penalties when equal or better alternatives are readily available.
Additionally, Reps should consider the suitability of DSC purchases for accounts in a de-accumulation stage e.g. the suitability of DSC purchases in RRIF accounts. In most cases, suitability will be almost impossible to justify when FEL is an available alternative.



Further ,when product and account cost becomes a formal suitability factor when/if proposed client-focussed reforms see the light of day, the Rep would have to look at a spectrum of products that are suitable including index funds , ETF’s and actively- managed ETF’s. Given empirical research on actively - managed funds that shows chronic underperformance vs. Benchmarks, indexing would most likely be the optimum solution, especially for smaller account sizes. Any other Rep recommendation would be subject to scrutiny from compliance and likely eligible for a client complaint.



Of course, if the Rep has not met disclosure obligations, that too would be a basis for a complaint. It is inconceivable that any informed investor faced between being locked in and not, would ever choose to be locked in. An informed investor would likely also object to the 5% advance payment for advice if the alternative was pay as you go. Rep recommendations should not be limited as to whether the redemption schedule was disclosed to the client but rather a consideration as to the suitability of the recommendation to purchase the DSC fund. For example, small investors who do not have an adequate emergency fund should not be sold a DSC fund.


So there you have it, with so many hurdles, there is no future for the DSC actively-managed mutual fund. It’s time has past. One BIG assumption –Reps care about their clients financial wellbeing AND supervision and compliance interpret and enforce the rules as intended.



Some argue that it is impossible for an SRO (junior regulator) to say that DSC is wholly unsuitable for everyone when it is allowed by the CSA. The SRO’s can (and do) certainly say that DSC is not suitable for certain clients by interpreting their suitability rules but they are not able to ban it entirely (as it is allowed by the CSA). There is no doubt, an outright ban on this toxic product is in the Public interest.



References:



Ross Miller's Active Expense Metric and its implications
If the Fund fails the metric test, passive would have to be considered. The DSC issue would automatically be resolved since low cost Index Mutual funds could not pay the 5% upfront commission. If index fund MER’s were increased, then ETF’s would have a field day.
http://landryinvest.ca/documents/articles/measuring_true_cost.pdf  



Vanguard CEO: High-Cost Active Management is Dead - Video | Investopedia
https://www.investopedia.com/video/play/vanguard-ceo-highcost-active-management-dead /



Ellis, Charles D., “The End of Active Investing,” Financial Times, Jan. 20, 2017
https://www.ft.com/content/6b2d5490-d9bb-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e









Investor Protection Takes A Step Backward - High Rock Capital Management
Article shows how the DSC Mutual fund abuses Canadian families saving for retirement.
http://highrockcapital.ca/scotts-blog/investor-protection-takes-a-step-backward



IIROC fines Branch Manager for deficient supervision of DSC funds

In this case, the Rep often sold mutual funds with deferred sales charges (DSC) and then repurchased similar funds, requiring clients to pay redemption fees and it reset the early redemption schedule on the newly purchased mutual funds. ($125,402 in redemption fees ere triggered)  The Rep also unnecessarily charged switch fees for the trades, which some clients said they weren’t told about. Clients were charged $367,459 in switch fees. 




Toothless investor Protection





Thursday, October 4, 2018

For your financial health, Avoid DSC mutual funds






One of our major concerns is the impact of the Deferred Sales Charge (DSC) mutual fund on clients, especially vulnerable seniors.

A  Dec. 2015 report from the regulator of mutual fund dealers identified several problematic practices, including: clients over age 70 that were sold DSC funds ( aka back-end load); clients who were sold funds with DSC redemption schedules that were longer than their investment time horizon; and evidence of poor disclosure of the redemption fees at certain firms. The report stated “Overall, there was a lack of consistency across [dealers] on how to supervise transactions involving seniors who purchased DSC funds.”.

A DSC sold fund pays a 5% sales upfront commission to a dealer/advisor when a purchase is made. This structure creates many conflicts-of-interest that can skew the recommendations from advisors to the detriment of elderly clients. DSC sold funds carry significant penalties if they aren’t held for 6 years. Ready access to investments is important for retirees living on fixed income in case of an emergency.The DSC fund also glues clients to their salesperson even if service is mediocre. Mutual fund salespersons are not required to act in the client’s best interests.

We’ve seen cases where seniors are exploited by salespersons that keep them locked into underperforming funds for long periods of time. The underperformance directly reduces their retirement income security and limits their choice of funds.

When a fund company unilaterally decides to shut down a fund, unitholders must either switch to another fund in the same family and possibly incur an up to 2% switch fee or redeem with a penalty and crystallize unplanned capital losses or gains. It’s like being between a rock and a hard place.

We’ve even seen cases where retirees were sold Canadian money market Funds intended for short term parking of cash sold on a DSC basis. That is beyond exploitive.

And then there’s fund churning that causes a lot of early redemption penalty fees to be incurred. The penalties are bad enough but in a RRIF they cannot even be offset against income. Any early redemption penalty fee paid is money lost in the RRIF (or RSP) forever.

Finally, even when an investor passes away, the DSC still applies, leaving beneficiaries a big headache - it is like a cancer that won’t go away.

An attempt by Securities regulators to ban the sale of such toxic funds is being vigorously opposed by some members of the mutual fund industry. Investor advocates want to protect investors by limiting access to the DSC option because it pays an outsized upfront commission to the dealer/ salesperson than other sales options, and a lower continuing commission for service to the client. Paying for advice well in advance of the provision of services is not smart especially if the advisor leaves the firm or retires.

Accordingly, there is not one consumer or investor advocacy group in Canada that supports the retention of the DSC sold mutual fund.

Here's what you can do:

      ·         Just don’t let your advisor sell you this toxic product 

·         Ask your advisor about the  Annual 10% DSC Free option if you already own such a fund 

·         Ask your dealer to waive switch fees and early redemption fees and switch  you into a lower cost product  that meets your needs

·         Ask your dealer to stop reinvesting distributions in your existing DSC funds

·         Buy a fund from a reputable fund company that has discontinued selling mutual funds on a DSC basis – these include Investors Group, Dynamic Funds and BMO Investments Inc. among several others

·         Shun fund firms and salespersons that promote the sale of DSC mutual funds

·         Tell all your friends , colleagues  and family to avoid being sold a DSC fund

For more information visit http://www.canadianfundwatch.com/search?q=dsc+  
The DSC Sold Fund Under the Microscope

If you want a real world education on advisor exploitation of seniors, read this
Classic Case of elder abuse and DSC sold Funds .It’s a MUST READ for every
senior and retiree http://www.iiroc.ca/Documents/2012/3cb46f19-f9fc-4fbe-8e88-584c5337f054_en.pdf

One way to avoid all this complexity and expense is to consider using a robo-advisor.

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Effective and Fair OM Exemption complaint investigations


Effective and Fair OM Exemption complaint investigations

Based on discussions with unsophisticated retail clients that have been adversely impacted by the regulatory exemptions regarding exempt securities a nasty picture arises. Most do not appreciate the rules of engagement, the unique risks of this market and especially the lack of liquidity.  Any distribution of securities in Canada must either be qualified by a prospectus or be exempt from the prospectus requirement.

The Offering Memorandum (OM) exemption allows issuers to raise funds from investors who are either not sufficiently wealthy or not in a sufficiently close relationship with the issuer to qualify for certain other exemptions. It is found in section 2.9 of National Instrument 45-106 Prospectus Exemptions. Certain conditions of the OM exemption apply across all provinces and territories, while certain other conditions vary depending on the jurisdiction in which securities are distributed. The common conditions include a requirement that the OM contain financial statements of the issuer, and that investors acknowledge in writing that the investment is risky. The variable conditions include, in certain provinces and territories, an annual investment limit of $10,000 (all figures in CA$) per investor unless the investor satisfies certain criteria, including having a specified level of income or assets. Complaint investigators must become familiar with the varying provincial rules and how they are interpreted by regulators.  

OM investors are required to complete and sign a form highlighting the key risks associated with investing in securities acquired under the OM Exemption. Individual investors are also be required to complete two schedules to the offering memorandum which ask investors to confirm their status (as an eligible investor, non-eligible investor, accredited investor or an investor who would qualify to purchase securities under the family, friends and business associates exemption) and that the investor is within the investment limits, where applicable. The OM exemption is loaded with bear traps for unsophisticated retail investors.

Marketing materials used by issuers in distributions under the OM Exemption must be incorporated by reference into the offering memorandum and filed with the securities regulatory authority. As a result, the marketing materials are subject to the same liability for a misrepresentation as the disclosure provided in the offering memorandum itself. Misleading OM marketing materials have been a source of angst for retail investors but should come into play when investigating complaints.

The companies and Exempt Market Dealers (EMD) that sell exempt securities want to see investors do well. But companies are also interested in maximizing the amount of capital they can raise and dealers want to boost their commissions – so there are conflicts-of-interest and incentives for both groups to encourage investors to buy exempt securities.

Problems/ complaints often arise because EMD Reps have not informed themselves as thoroughly as they should have about the investor's ’ situation ( KYC), the features and risks of the exempt investments they have recommended (KYP) and how those two Assessments should be applied to the client’s situation. For instance , someone with low to medium risk tolerance and capacity , low financial literacy and a large mortgage or credit card balance shouldn't be sold securities under the OM exemption even if they technically are eligible and are willing to sign the risk disclosure document. It is vitally important also for complaint investigators to recognize that (a) disclosure is NOT the same as transparency and (b) the well known downsides and limitations of disclosure.

In May 2017, the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) concluded in a report that while many exempt market dealers adhered to the KYC, KYP and suitability rules, numerous others had significant compliance deficiencies in the collection and documentation of KYC information, inadequate Know your Product analysis , marketing materials that contained unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims and inadequate identification and response to conflicts-of-interest. Furthermore, a large number of instances were uncovered where brokers' clients possessed unsuitable investments such as: low-risk investors holding high-risk securities; income investors holding growth securities; short-term investors holding long-term securities; and investors with portfolios over-concentrated in exempt securities.
http://www.albertasecurities.com/Regulatory%20Instruments/5331553%20_%20EMD_Project_Staff_Notice%2033-705.pdf

Unsuitable investments are bad enough but we have found that OM client complainants are also treated poorly. Attempts are made to blame the investor by citing he/she signed all the forms on risk and understood other complex matters related to investing in exempt securities. Complaint investigators need to go beyond the signed documents given the known vulnerabilities of retail investors.

In the EMD sector, OBSI closed 18 cases in 2017 with just one complaint (5 %) being upheld. This contrasts sharply with compensation recommendations for investment complaints generally- OBSI upheld 39% of investment complaints in 2017 (and 23% of banking complaints).

Our concern is that complaint investigators are not using proper complaint assessment principles to deal fairly with unique OM exemption complainants and complaints.

We suggest the following Checklist be adopted by OM complaint investigators to ensure complainants are treated fairly.
.
                                                                                                                            
EMD complaint investigation checklist

·         Basic Principle : KYP, Suitability determination is the sole responsibility of the Exempt Market Dealer – suitability and eligibility are NOT the same thing. Eligibility should be validated before suitability assessment  
·         Has the dealer exhibited due diligence in evaluating the exempt security?
·         Is there objective evidence that eligibility was verified? Income tax returns/ payroll stubs should be checked if client appears uncertain on responses  
·         Are marketing materials misleading or different than the OM materials?
·         Did the Dealer rely solely on self- certification of eligibility? Many retail investors do not understand the relevant terminology or have low financial literacy
·         Employment stability checked as appropriate by Dealer?
·         Was product risk adequately disclosed in terms the investor can understand?
·         Was time horizon properly defined? Liquidity , redemption fees
·         Has the lack of liquidity of exempt securities been considered in suitability determination re KYC?
·         Is the client a vulnerable investor? Low financial literacy, senior, poor literacy, weak numeracy , language issues
·         Does client have experience with OM exemption?
·         Are client life objectives documented? IPS ? financial plan?
·         Is Dealer NAAF/ KYC form adequate given the nature of the risks? Debt obligations, cash income needs, number of dependents , age , tax rate
·         How was the client’s financial knowledge determined? If determined to be Low or Fair, extra Dealer controls are  required especially as regards eligibility information provided and understanding of risks
·         Was risk tolerance determined by a Dealer approved test and process? Is objective evidence available?
·         Did the Dealer depend solely on client self -assessment of risk?
·         Was client risk capacity determined? e.g. a retiree , an investor with  a large mortgage /young family, unemployed
·         Did the Dealer rely solely on client completed risk acknowledgement form?
·         Was “informed consent” obtained?
·         Are Rep Notes available for review?  
·         Has the Dealer documented the suitability assessment?
·         What is Rep background? Registration, disciplinary history , designations, qualifications  
·         Any there any regulatory/ legal actions against Dealer, Issuer or product?
·         Is marketing and sales literature misleading? Deceptive?
·         Was Suitability assessed per transaction or on portfolio basis? Should be on individual security and on portfolio ( concentration of assets) basis.

We believe that complaint investigators should use such a checklist in order to ensure a fair assessment of an OM complaint. We appreciate however that every case will be fact-specific considering all of the evidence.

References


Jeffrey MacIntosh, "Enforcement Issues Associated with Prospectus Exemptions in Canada,"  August, 2017. “…By comparison, equity financing in the public market averaged approximately $16.5-billion a year in each of 2010 and 2011 – comprising $3-billion in initial public offerings, $1.5-billion in private-venture funding and $12-billion in secondary offerings (based on Prof. Jog's estimates).Indeed, the exempt market "dwarfs the public market," says Prof. MacIntosh. Given the enormous size of the exempt-securities market, the amount of harm inflicted on investors could be considerable if extensive non-compliance exists, he adds…”


Guidelines for obtaining meaningful consent - Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner will begin to apply these guidelines on January 1, 2019. The release of these guidelines is part of the Office’s work to improve the current consent model under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). For further details, please refer to the consultation on consent under the PIPEDA.
https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/collecting-personal-information/consent/gl_omc_201805/. There are many issues re informed consent in the investment business especially given the asymmetry in knowledge and the clever (cunning) writing of consent agreements by industry participants. 

Ending abusive clauses in consumer contracts Report 2011 http://uniondesconsommateurs.ca/docu/protec_conso/EndAbusiveClauses.pdf



Thursday, August 23, 2018

Open Letter to the CSA on embedded commissions and DSC





“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all." - Peter Drucker

As we have publicly disclosed, Kenmar Associates will no longer respond to any CSA consultation regarding, Best interests, DSC or embedded commissions. Our team has spent hundreds of person-hours dedicated to regulatory reform with no positive result over the last decade. The CSA has announced that it will conduct another consultation on embedded commissions in September.This Open letter therefore should be viewed as a reaction rather than a response.

In the planned consultation the CSA will be proposing to prohibit the payment of trailing commissions to dealers, such as discount brokers, who do not make a suitability determination (presumably, this is equivalent to banning the offering of products such as mutual funds with embedded commissions being paid to dealers, including discount brokers, for services they cannot and knowingly will not provide). This can be likened to Health safety regulators consulting on whether poison should be prohibited from retail grocery shelves. Consulting on such an obvious case of financial assault on investors is disrespectful of retail investors. The CSA should be ashamed to admit that for well over a decade hundreds of millions of dollars have needlessly been diverted from the retirement savings of Canadians despite numerous pleas from consumer groups.

The basic securities law of dealing honestly, fairly and in good faith with clients has been brazenly breached with not a whimper of regulatory enforcement or concern for retail investor protection. Further, the CSA has not warned investors via Alerts and education that it is permitting this broad daylight robbing of their hard earned money.

The CSA is in effect going to be asking for comments on an issue that is clearly unlawful and harmful to investors. It is treating common sense and basic morality as sidebars to the discussion. It is well aware that Fund Facts which states that trailers are for the provision of services (albeit unspecified) and personalized investment advice. The CSA therefore knows there are elements of misrepresentation involved when discount brokers offer A series of mutual funds with embedded trailer commissions.

The CSA is also aware that even the trade Association for the investment funds industry has called on them to establish rules to ensure that mutual funds carrying an embedded advisor fee are sold only in channels where advice is permitted.

“Investors who buy funds directly, for example through a discount broker, should be confident that they are not inadvertently overpaying by selecting a series that includes fees for services that are not available through that platform,” - Paul C. Bourque, Q.C., IFIC’s president and CEO.  Source: https://www.ific.ca/en/news/limit-series-a-sales-to-channels-that-permit-advice-ific/

The CSA has not yet addressed the enabler of these abusive trailer payments, the mutual funds. The mutual funds are knowingly reducing fund assets by paying discount brokers (sometimes even related parties) for nothing. These assets aren’t some intangible collection of cash. They are the retirement savings of millions of Canadians. Are there provisions in NI1-107 that exempt funds from protecting unitholder assets?  If not, why isn’t the CSA prosecuting those entities for a breach of fiduciary duty? Why must investors have to resort to Class Actions for such an in-your-face attack on their life savings?

Earlier this month IIROC abruptly suspended Section 2 from its notice that accompanies guidance for order-execution-only (OEO) services and activities, published in April this year. The section says IIROC expects OEO firms to make available, whenever possible, series of funds that don’t pay trailing commissions for ongoing advice. When no such series is available and an OEO firm offers a series with a trailing commission, IIROC says in the section that it expects the firm to address the conflict—by rebating to the client the portion of the trailing commission or by “taking other similar steps.”  So for now, those expectations are on hold and investors will continue to be exploited. In the meantime, OEO firms remain subject to IIROC’s rules concerning conflicts-of-interest, including the requirement to address conflicts considering the best interest of the client, says the IIROC Notice. That may be, but will IIROC protect investors by enforcing its rules with its Member discount brokers? Will the practice of unduly collecting trailers cease? Will there be rebates?

The Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights (FAIR) has criticized IIROC’s decision.  Frank Allen, Executive  Director  of FAIR was “ dismayed that IIROC cites the upcoming CSA rule proposal prohibiting the payment of trailing commissions to online brokerage firms (discount brokerages) as the reason for the suspension.”  SIPA, individual investors and ourselves support FAIR in being critical of the IIROC action. The suspension leaves affected Retail investors subject to mitigation risk and one can reasonably argue that the statute of limitations time clock is already ticking.

Even if the CSA were to ban discount brokers from offering products with embedded service commitments we are concerned that such a ban might include exceptions or be open to future regulatory exemptions. There is even the possibility a cost-benefit analysis will be required, again delaying affirmative action. Kenmar are therefore calling for a cancellation of the consultation and an immediate banning of any dealer from offering a product or security that contains an obligation to provide a service or function that it cannot and/or will not provide. That would be common sense- it is the right thing to do and it will save people hundreds of person- hours of wasteful activity.

As to the planned consultation re a proposed ban on the DSC-sold fund, there is the same question. Why? Does the CSA not have enough data to make a decision? Has it not heard the voice of consumers pleading for a prohibition? Were Roundtable conclusions unclear? Is the client complaint data ambiguous? Is there any research that supports not banning DSC-sold funds? Is there any identifiable benefit to clients of a DSC-sold fund? Does the CSA buy the feeble arguments from a small minority of industry participants on the benefits of DSC? The CSA knows the answers and yet it continue to consult , dragging out the agony for investors for another year or two and more if there is a extended transition period.

Several responsible firms and Dealing Reps have stopped selling DSC Funds even as the CSA waffles on making a definitive decision. As with many CSA regulations we fear there will be carve outs or exemptions so that even a ban is nothing more than an illusion. Accordingly, Kenmar respectfully request that the CSA cancel this planned consultation since it clearly knows the answer. The CSA should make a decision- ban the sale of DSC-sold funds while defining the rules regarding unitholders currently holding such toxic funds. Such a positive action would help restore confidence in the CSA and definitely would be in the Public interest.

If despite all logic and fairness, the planned consultation proceeds, we draw the CSA’s attention to a public statement from the Ontario Securities Commission’s Investor Advisory Panel (IAP). The IAP is calling on the CSA to prevent possible further investor abuse by making their proposed bans on deferred sales charge (DSC) mutual funds and the payment of trailer fees to discount brokers retroactive to the launch of a consultation slated for September. The IAP says that it’s concerned about the possible risk to investors while the consultation plays out. It says that “In proposing the elimination of DSCs and the discontinuance of trailing commission payments to discount brokers, the CSA has noted that these fee practices are problematic, inappropriate and harmful.”

Kenmar fully support this backup choice approach and respectfully again request that the CSA immediately issue an educational pamphlet and Investor ALERT on the harmful effects of DSC-sold Funds and products with embedded trailing commissions offered by IIROC regulated discount brokers.

The CSA website states: The CSA protects Canadian investors from unfair, improper, or fraudulent practices and fosters fair and efficient capital marketsBy cancelling the upcoming consultation and making the necessary decisions, the CSA can demonstrate that it is serious about protecting investors. This is an incredible opportunity that should not be missed.

Sincerely,

Kenmar Associates




Sunday, August 19, 2018

The final insult for victims of financial Assault - the RELEASE form



The odds are that sometime during your investing lifecycle you will file a complaint with your investment dealer. The odds are also high the dealer will deny any responsibility for your losses. In those cases where they do concede some liability for the losses, they may agree to partially compensate you. In order to receive any compensation they will insist you sign a RELEASE form. If you don't sign you will not get your money back no matter how valid your complaint. You will then have to use the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments which does not provide a binding decision or proceed to costly , aggravating civil litigation.

In case you’ve wondered what a RELEASE form looks like we present a typical example here. If you think the deal is one-sided and ugly, you are right, it is. If you think some sharp lawyer working for the dealer crafted this document , you are right again.Note also this RELEASE serves as a Gag order in that you effectively cannot reveal what happened to you. Most Canadians are shocked that such silencing of a complainant is permitted in Canada. Many regard their experience with the financial services industry complaint system as life -altering. The possibility of a #MeToo movement is stirring against financial assault.

Investment Complaint handling in Canada  definitely isn't " If you're not satisfied, your money will be cheerfully refunded"  .This blog should open your eyes to Bay Street tactics to keep details of client complaints from the public. Be AWARE. 

To obtain a deeper understanding on how Bay Street can adversely impact the lives of Canadians visit Listen to the Voices. 


RELEASE


IN CONSIDERATION of the payment by Big Bank Dealers Inc. ( BBDI) of the sum of $XXX.00 in Canadian Currency (Cdn) and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged) to Mr. I.M. Canadian for and on his own behalf and for and on behalf of his agents, heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Releasors”), the Releasor does hereby fully and finally release and forever discharge BBDI, together with each of their associated, affiliated, related and predecessor companies, partnerships and entities, as well as each of their respective directors, officers, shareholders, employees, servants, agents and insurers and each of their respective successors and assigns or any other person for whom they may be responsible in fact or in law (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Releasees”), from any and all actions, causes of actions, judicial proceedings, suits, claims, demands, debts, dues, accounts, bonds, contracts and covenants, whether express or implied or direct or indirect, and for damages, indemnity, costs, interest, loss or injury of every nature and kind whatsoever and however arising which the Releasor may have had, may now have or may in the future have for or by reason of any cause, matter or thing whatsoever existing and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, all claims and demands arising in, out of or in any way connected, directly or indirectly, with BBDI  Accounts 123-45678 and 123-45679 up to and including this day.

AND FOR THE SAID CONSIDERATION, the Releasor further agrees not to make any claims or to commence or maintain any action or proceeding, either directly or indirectly, whether in Canada or elsewhere, on his own behalf or on behalf of any class or any other person, against any other person, corporation or other entity in which any claim could arise for contribution or indemnity or any other relief over, against the Releasees (all the claims described in this paragraph are referred to as a “Prohibited Proceeding”).



THE RELEASOR agrees that in the event he commences a Prohibited Proceeding, and either or both of the Releasees are added in any capacity or manner whatsoever to such proceeding:

(a)         the Releasor will:

i.         immediately discontinue the Prohibited Proceeding; and

ii.         be liable for all legal and related costs incurred by the Releasees in connection therewith;

(b)         this Release:

i.         shall operate conclusively as an estoppel in the event a Prohibited Proceeding is commenced;

ii.         may be pleaded as a complete defence and reply in the event a Prohibited Proceeding is commenced; and

iii.         may be relied upon in any proceeding to dismiss a Prohibited Proceeding and no objection will be raised by the Releasor to the effect that other parties to the Prohibited Proceeding are not parties to this Release.

THE RELEASOR represents and warrants that he has not assigned to any person or corporation or other entity any claim which has been released by this Release.

THE RELEASOR acknowledges that before signing this Release, he has been afforded the opportunity to, or did in fact, seek independent legal advice in connection with all of the matters which are the subject hereof. The Releasor voluntarily accepts the consideration offered for the purpose of making full and final compromise and settlement of all claims as aforesaid.

IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the aforesaid consideration is deemed to be no admission of any liability or obligation of any kind whatsoever on the part of the Releasees.

IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the Releasor hereby undertakes and agrees not to disclose the terms of the settlement and this Release to any third party without the prior written consent of the Releasees, except as required by law and except for any communications with securities regulatory and self-regulatory organizations.


THE RELEASOR AGREES that should he breach any terms of this Release, there shall be a complete failure of consideration in favour of the Releasees, and accordingly, they shall be liable, in addition to any other remedy the Releasees may have, to repay to the Releasees any and all of the consideration received in accordance with the terms of this Release.


THE RELEASOR UNDERTAKES AND AGREES to cooperate with the Releasees to execute and deliver such further and other documents as may be reasonably required to give effect to this Release.

IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that this Release, once executed, may be retained in electronic form and has the same force and effect as the original executed Release.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Releasor has hereto set his hand this ___ day of __________, 2018.



SIGNED in the presence of:
}



}


______________________________
}
___________________________

Witness’s signature
}
Mr. I. M. Canadian


}


______________________________
}


[NAME]
}





______________________________
}


[ADDRESS]
}





______________________________
}