Bill sues Scotia - Former CEO asks court to bar eviction ord

[Rockman]

I suspect the reason is known only to Scotia(directional change) or Bill would've said it.
Also there are improprieties..that Scotia will not declare because of fear of losing customers' confidence but then the forced retirement was accepted.
Bill should demand his pay in the interim too.
Not sure if there is a distinction between being the CEO...and not being it, again he should demand his pay too.

Mosiah a u or Obama dat pon de avatar?


Blessed

[Karl]

The contract must be honoured. Bill must have his day in court if Scotia does not do the honourable thing and live up to its contract.

...besides if Scotia shafts its employees or former employees why in the world would Scotia not think its customers and its clients (those who put their money with them) would be wrong in thinking it will shaft them...and thus face a run on the bank...or some rethinking of doing business with the bank...or horrors of horrors thinking of shafting the bank/dishonouring obligations to the bank?

From a public relations angle I think Scotia should just settle with Bill "fas-fas'!

[Bricktop]

Breach of contract? Just asking.

[Mosiah]

Mosiah a u or Obama dat pon de avatar?
Blessed

Wi fayva, eh?

[Bricktop]

Yuh mussi jus done yuh bleaching treatment

[Gamma]

no, they can argue that he voluntarily gave it up and by so doing admitted that he was admitting that he had no entitlement to it so it is effectively off the table in any negotiations whether as leverage or proof otherwise....