Summary: Bank Of Nova Notice
GROUP 6
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
& DAVID BERRY
Viveda Kandiah
Pardeep Kainth
Ramandeep Rakhra
Dharshan Panneer
RE-EDIT EVERYHTING AND CHANGE UP WORDING AND STUFF ETC
Copy and pasted
“Misconduct breached fundamental terms of his employment with Scotia, and was just cause for his termination.” In other words, Berry had put the bank at risk.
Scotia couldn’t understand how Berry, the biggest player in the preferred share world and one of the highest-paid employees at the firm thanks to a so-called direct drive contract, could get short on a new issue. Being short means that the firms sell more shares than are available in the new issue and the firm has some fire power in the after-market, meaning more liquidity.
Mr. Berry was earning millions of dollars for the bank in 2004, it was seeking outside legal opinions on the ramifications of renegotiating his contract to stop paying him so much.
Cumming is willing to testify that senior executives at Scotia had divulged the bank’s desire to catch Berry in “something like a securities violation so Scotia could use it against him,” to either severely reduce his compensation package or fire him.
The bank claimed that Berry had hidden his behaviour and that his education and training was such that he should have known his “misconduct …show more content…
He was alleged of committing security regulatory violations. He was accused of violating uniform market integrity rules. Berry went into a big legal battle to prove that he did not do anything wrong. Information was released to the media that higher management of Scotiabank were looking for opinions from lawyers to change Berry’s contract and keep him from leaving for a competitor prior to his accusation and termination from Scotia Capital. Eight years, later all allegations against Berry were dismissed by the IIROC. David Berry has a $100 million class action law suit against his former employer for constructive and wrongful
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
& DAVID BERRY
Viveda Kandiah
Pardeep Kainth
Ramandeep Rakhra
Dharshan Panneer
RE-EDIT EVERYHTING AND CHANGE UP WORDING AND STUFF ETC
Copy and pasted
“Misconduct breached fundamental terms of his employment with Scotia, and was just cause for his termination.” In other words, Berry had put the bank at risk.
Scotia couldn’t understand how Berry, the biggest player in the preferred share world and one of the highest-paid employees at the firm thanks to a so-called direct drive contract, could get short on a new issue. Being short means that the firms sell more shares than are available in the new issue and the firm has some fire power in the after-market, meaning more liquidity.
Mr. Berry was earning millions of dollars for the bank in 2004, it was seeking outside legal opinions on the ramifications of renegotiating his contract to stop paying him so much.
Cumming is willing to testify that senior executives at Scotia had divulged the bank’s desire to catch Berry in “something like a securities violation so Scotia could use it against him,” to either severely reduce his compensation package or fire him.
The bank claimed that Berry had hidden his behaviour and that his education and training was such that he should have known his “misconduct …show more content…
He was alleged of committing security regulatory violations. He was accused of violating uniform market integrity rules. Berry went into a big legal battle to prove that he did not do anything wrong. Information was released to the media that higher management of Scotiabank were looking for opinions from lawyers to change Berry’s contract and keep him from leaving for a competitor prior to his accusation and termination from Scotia Capital. Eight years, later all allegations against Berry were dismissed by the IIROC. David Berry has a $100 million class action law suit against his former employer for constructive and wrongful