MFDA Hearing Panel accepts Settlement Agreement and issues Reasons in the matter of Independent Accountants' Investment Group Inc.

TORONTO, April 11, 2012 /CNW/ - A Settlement Hearing in the matter of Independent Accountants' Investment Group Inc. (the "Respondent") was held on March 30, 2012 in Toronto, Ontario before a Hearing Panel of the MFDA's Central Regional Council. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Panel reserved its decision as to whether it would accept or reject the Settlement Agreement entered into by the Respondent and MFDA Staff on February 23, 2012.

In its Decision and Reasons dated April 5, 2012, the Hearing Panel accepted the Settlement Agreement, as a consequence of which the Respondent has paid a $25,000 fine and $2,500 in costs.

In the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent admitted that:

1.		between March 1, 2008 to March 31, 2010, it failed to ensure that individuals responsible for trade supervision for the Respondent at both the branch and head office levels, maintained records of trade inquiries made, responses received or resolutions achieved with respect to trade supervision;
2.		it failed to establish, implement and maintain adequate policies and procedures and designate appropriately qualified and accountable individuals to fulfill its supervisory obligations insofar as:
		a)	between October 27, 2009 and May 10, 2010, the Respondent failed to designate an individual as a branch manager who was an employee or agent of the Respondent, supervised by and accountable to the Respondent to conduct trade supervision for its Oakville branch;
		b)	between October 27, 2009 and May 10, 2010, the Respondent failed to designate an individual to conduct Head Office account supervision for its Oakville branch;
		c)	between May 10, 2010 and January 6, 2011, the Respondent failed to designate an individual to conduct branch level trade supervision for its Oakville branch who:
			i.	was an employee or agent of the Respondent working on-site at its Oakville branch; and
			ii.	had satisfied the proficiency requirements to be a branch manager.
		d)	between October 27, 2009 and  May 10, 2010, it designated an individual to conduct Head Office supervision for its Kelowna branch who was not an employee or agent of the Respondent, supervised by and accountable to the Respondent;
		e)	between March 9, 2010 and May 10, 2010, it designated an individual to conduct Head Office supervision for its Edmonton branch who was not an employee or agent of the Respondent, supervised by and accountable to the Respondent;
		f)	between June 1, 2010 and January 28, 2011, it designated an individual to conduct account supervision for its Oakville, Edmonton and Kelowna branches who had not satisfied the proficiency requirements to be a branch manager or a compliance officer;
		contrary to MFDA Rules 2.1.1 (b), (c) and (d), 2.2.1, 2.5, 2.10, former Rules 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 and MFDA Policy No. 2.

The Settlement Agreement and the Hearing Panel's Decision and Reasons are available on the MFDA website at www.mfda.ca.

The MFDA is the self-regulatory organization for Canadian mutual fund dealers, regulating the operations, standards of practice and business conduct of its 123 Members and their approximately 75,000 Approved Persons with a mandate to protect investors and the public interest.

 

Shaun Devlin
Vice-President, Enforcement
416-943-4672 or [email protected]