Canadian ABCP

The ABCP settlements have been released:

In the Scotia agreement, the “Contraventions” section is one paragraph long:

71. The Respondent admits to the following contraventions of IIROC Rules, Guidance, IDA By-Laws, Regulations or Policies:
Between July 25 and August 10, 2007, the Respondent failed to adequately respond to emerging issues in the Coventree ABCP market insofar as it continued to sell Coventree ABCP without engaging Compliance and other appropriate processes for the assessment of such emerging issues, contrary to IDA By-law 29.1 (ii) (now Dealer Member Rule 29.1(ii)).

If we have a look at Rule 29.1:

29.1. Dealer Members and each partner, Director, Officer, Supervisor, Registered Representative, Investment Representative and employee of a Dealer Member (i) shall observe high standards of ethics and conduct in the transaction of their business, (ii) shall not engage in any business conduct or practice which is unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest, and (iii) shall be of such character and business repute and have such experience and training as is consistent with the standards described in clauses (i) and (ii) or as may be prescribed by the Board.

For the purposes of disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the Rules, each Dealer Member shall be responsible for all acts and omissions of each partner, Director, Officer, Supervisor, Registered Representative, Investment Representative and employee of a Dealer Member; and each of the foregoing individuals shall comply with all Rules required to be complied with by the Dealer Member.

The agreed statement of facts for Scotia’s “Response to Emerging Issues” is:

60. Notwithstanding the events described above, the Respondent failed to fully assess the information in the July 24th e-mail in a meaningful way. The Respondent did not notify its Compliance Department (“Compliance”) of the July 24th email or its contents until after August 13, 2007.

61. Notwithstanding its concerns about emerging market issues for Coventree ABCP, the Respondent failed to engage an adequate process to fully assess the impact of those concerns. The Respondent did not notify Compliance of its concerns.

62. Notwithstanding the emerging issues relating to the Coventree ABCP market as described above, the Respondent continued to sell Coventree ABCP to institutional clients, primarily by way of newly issued paper.

63. From July 25 to August 3, 2007, the Respondent sold Comet E from inventory, as noted in paragraph 56, and newly issued Planet A ABCP in the amount of $35,400,000, to institutional clients who the Respondent was not aware had knowledge of the US subprime exposure.

64. On August 3 the Respondent sold $28 million and from August 7 to 10 the Respondent sold $235 million in newly issued Aurora A, SAT A, and SIT III A to institutional clients (excluding sales of ABCP that matured prior to August 13, 2007 and sales to the CDPQ and other certain professional counterparties).

Update: The AMF Press Release provides more detail:

Five of the institutions involved are alleged to have failed to adequately respond to issues in the third party ABCP market, as they continued to buy and/or sell without engaging compliance and other appropriate processes for assessing such issues. Particularly, they did not disclose to all their clients the July 24th e-mail from Coventree providing the subprime exposure of each Coventree ABCP conduit.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.