|Paul Mascard, Northland CEO|
The two critical facts which, when taken together, conclusively show that Northland, and its CEO, Paul Mascard, individually, not only breached a fiduciary duty, but also committed an intentional tort:
(1) Formal statements, of a former senior banker at Dundee Bank, to the effect that Paul Mascard personally gave approval to transfer client accounts at Butterfield Bank (Cayman) Ltd., to a shell Cayman company, B & C Capital Ltd., which was at that time insolvent, with no assets. That statement was made in a court proceeding, in another jurisdiction.
(2) Guarantees, made in person, through affirmative statements, made by Paul Mascard, to a client, that B & C Capital, Ltd. was a reputable "bank," in the Cayman Islands. B & C is not now, nor was it ever, a financial institution, anywhere in the world. This was a misstatement of material fact, made to a client, to falsely reassure him that his money was safe in a bank . In truth and in fact, it was soon to be stolen, by the Cayman Gang of Four, a Cayman islands-based crew of professional fraudsters, and it has not been found.
Therefore, Northland Wealth Management, Inc., of Canada, is strictly liable for any losses Northland clients suffered, by reason of the diversion of their accounts to the control of the Cayman Gang of Four, by any interpretation of existing securities law.
We understand that there will shortly be a number of Examinations for Discovery, conducted of Northland officers and staff members, and we shall report back to our readers on all future developments as they occur.
Readers in Canada who wish to follow the case please note the Ontario Superior Court of Justice case number below.
* There are other companies that carry the Northland name, including one in the United States, but they have no affiliation or connection with Northland Wealth Management, Inc. My research indicates that they were formed significantly earlier than the Ontario company which is the subject of the captioned civil suit. Questions have been raised as to whether the Canadian company has a deceptively similar name to that of the well-established US firm.