BRP (DOOO) Gets a Hold from Scotiabank
Scotiabank analyst Jonathan Goldman maintained a Hold rating on BRP (DOOO – Research Report) yesterday and set a price target of C$67.00. The company's shares closed yesterday at $44.00.
Confident Investing Starts Here:
Goldman covers the Consumer Cyclical sector, focusing on stocks such as Magna International, Linamar, and BRP. According to TipRanks, Goldman has an average return of 6.0% and a 48.78% success rate on recommended stocks.
In addition to Scotiabank, BRP also received a Hold from National Bank's Cameron Doerksen in a report issued yesterday. However, on the same day, Stifel Nicolaus upgraded BRP (NASDAQ: DOOO) to a Buy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scotiabank holds customer responsible for almost $20K in credit card fraud
Jordon Judge's cellphone rang as he sat in his local Vancouver coffee shop last October — caller ID said the person was from Scotiabank. He had no idea it was actually a fraudster who had manipulated the call display, a practice known as phone call "spoofing." The fraudster said he was calling to flag two suspicious charges that were coming through on Judge's Scotiabank Visa card. Judge said he hadn't approved those charges and the caller said they would be blocked. But two days later, Judge spotted two large charges on his credit card statement, totalling almost $20,000. "Those were not my charges," he told Go Public. "So it was definitely astonishment." It was the beginning of a long and frustrating process, during which Scotiabank continued to insist he was liable for the fraudulent charges. Credit card fraud is a growing problem. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre doesn't track how much money people lose to it, but says that over the past three years, an increasing portion of identity fraud cases have involved compromised credit cards. WATCH | On the hook for $20K: The Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments says complaints related to fraud are the number one issue it deals with, and only e-transfers have more fraud complaints than credit cards. Under federal law, a person's maximum liability for unauthorized credit card transactions is generally capped at $50 unless the bank can prove the customer was grossly negligent in protecting their card. A cybersecurity expert says increasing fraud and the rise in complex technology means financial institutions should be conducting thorough investigations and providing clear evidence when holding customers liable. "All that the bank has done is accuse [Judge] of either negligence or malice," said Claudiu Popa, who has 35 years' experience in cybersecurity and wrote The Canadian Cyberfraud Handbook. "The bank has to prove that the customer is the one who perpetrated this quite significant and sophisticated fraud." Scotiabank declined an interview request, did not answer any written questions and instead sent a brief statement, reminding customers to safeguard their personal information. The fraudster who called Judge asked for his birth date and mother's maiden name, which Judge shared. But then the fraudster asked him to share a "one-time passcode" — a type of two-step verification — that was texted to his phone. Judge says he refused to do that, because the message also told him not to share the code with anyone, and said that no one from Scotiabank would ever ask for it. The fraudster claimed that he stopped the charges from going through and hung up. But two days later, Judge discovered a charge for $17,900 to Anglia Ruskin University in the U.K. on his statement, and a second for $1,800, supposedly paid to someone by the name of Paula S. Taylor. "I wasn't worried at the time because I knew those weren't my charges," said Judge. "I thought I couldn't be held accountable for it." Judge filed a request for compensation with Scotiabank, which sent him a letter a few weeks later, saying the bank had "examined all relevant documentation" and concluded that he was responsible for the charges. The letter did not outline what evidence had been reviewed and did not explain why the bank concluded he should be on the hook for almost $20,000 — plus the growing interest. "When people sign up for credit cards, they're under the assumption that if they get scammed, they're not liable for the purchases made on their credit card," said Judge. "Apparently that's not the case." He appealed, and a second letter — from Scotiabank's Escalated Customer Concerns Office (ECCO) — also found Judge responsible, stating that a one-time passcode was used for the university charge, calling it "a feature that has a proven track record in mitigating fraudulent and nefarious activities". The ECCO letter said that because the code was sent to Judge's phone, it "indicates" that the code was disclosed. Judge appealed that decision, but Scotiabank's Customer Complaints Appeals Office also claimed in a letter that evidence "suggests" Judge revealed a one-time passcode. "Evidence that may 'suggest' something isn't evidence of a fact," said Geoff White, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. "One would like to see more in terms of actual evidence demonstrating that the customer was negligent — rather than simply an assertion." White also said the onus shouldn't be on individuals to prove they are innocent of a crime. "The onus is in fact on institutions to take care of their systems," said White. "Make sure that their processes are secure." Popa, the cybersecurity expert, took a look at Scotiabank's correspondence and says the financial institution didn't provide evidence of "the most basic investigation," which would include reviewing a log of activities that would be time-stamped — such as showing when an individual received the one-time passcode and when it was entered into a web interface. "This was never provided," said Popa. "Nor was there an indication that this kind of log was inspected." Contrary to Scotia's insistence that a one-time passcode is a proven fraud deterrent, Popa says a code sent via email or SMS is vulnerable to "a number of different types of compromises" and is less safe than using an authenticator app. Cellphones can be hacked using malware or spyware and SIM cards can be hijacked — allowing fraudsters to intercept text messages. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre also told Go Public that it recommends people use an authenticator app when possible. "Unlike SMS/text messages or email messages, authenticator apps generate time-sensitive passcodes that are not vulnerable to SIM swapping or potential text message and email interception," wrote CAFC spokesperson Jeff Horncastle. The Quebec-based advocacy group Option consommateurs has been calling on the federal government to strengthen protections for banking customers in cases of fraud. In a proposal to MPs earlier this year, the organization said the Bank Act should require transparency when a bank investigates, and clarify that the burden of proving the customer was highly negligent rests on the bank. Go Public contacted Anglia Ruskin University to ask about the charge on Judge's credit card. A representative said Scotiabank never contacted the university — another disappointment to Popa. "Why would you not contact an organization that you know exists?" asked Popa. "They have a duty to investigate and to protect their customers." After Go Public made several inquiries with the university, it said it conducted an investigation and reimbursed Judge. A spokesperson said it could not elaborate on its findings, such as whether the money was used to pay for someone's tuition. Go Public also asked Scotiabank several times what evidence it had to hold its customer responsible for the fraudulent charges. Although the bank did not reply, it recently credited Judge's bank account — covering the outstanding $1,800 paid to "Paula S. Taylor" and the interest that had accrued on both charges. Judge says no one from Scotiabank contacted him to explain the about-face. "I do think it's ridiculous that it took the media to get involved until they decided they would even act as if they cared," said Judge. Previously, Scotiabank had offered Judge $200 as a "goodwill gesture," but said he would have to acknowledge his claim was resolved and drop any further action. Judge declined. Although he has been fully compensated, Judge had to push for almost eight months, and is still left without any answers about why Scotiabank insisted for so long that he was responsible for the fraud. "My biggest concern is that there are people in his situation … who may not have the ability to pressure their financial institution to be more transparent or to recognize the fact that they might not be guilty," said Popa, the cybersecurity expert. "People are out there who are simply being silently victimized." Submit your story ideas Go Public is an investigative news segment on CBC-TV, radio and the web. We tell your stories, shed light on wrongdoing and hold the powers that be accountable. If you have a story in the public interest, or if you're an insider with information, contact gopublic@ with your name, contact information and a brief summary. All emails are confidential until you decide to Go Public. Read more stories by Go Public. Read about our hosts.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Arizona Sonoran Announces C$45 Million Bought Deal Public Offering of Common Shares
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO UNITED STATES NEWS WIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES. TORONTO, June 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Arizona Sonoran Copper Company Inc. ('Arizona Sonoran' or the 'Company') (TSX:ASCU) is pleased to announce that it has entered into an agreement with Scotiabank, as sole bookrunner, on behalf of a syndicate of underwriters (collectively, the 'Underwriters'), pursuant to which the Underwriters have agreed to purchase, on a 'bought deal' basis, 22,500,000 common shares (the 'Common Shares') of the Company at a price of C$2.00 per Common Share (the 'Issue Price') for aggregate gross proceeds to the Company of C$45 million (the 'Offering'). The Company has agreed to grant the Underwriters an over-allotment option to purchase at the Issue Price up to an additional 15% of the Common Shares to be issued in connection with the Offering, exercisable in whole or in part at any time for a period ending 30 days from the closing of the Offering. The net proceeds of the Offering will be used to exercise buyback options in respect of NSR royalties on the Cactus Project, to fund potential land acquisitions in connection with the Cactus Project as described in the current technical report for the Cactus Project with an issued date of August 23, 2024 and filed under the Company's issuer profile on SEDAR+ at on August 26, 2024, for the completion of technical and engineering studies, and for working capital and general corporate purposes. It is anticipated that the net proceeds from the Offering will fully fund the Company through to a final investment decision at the Cactus Project. The Offering is expected to close on or about June 20, 2025 and is subject to certain conditions including, but not limited to, the receipt of all necessary approvals, including the conditional approval of the Toronto Stock Exchange. The Common Shares will be offered by way of a short form prospectus to be filed in each of the provinces and territories of Canada, except Quebec, and may be offered in the United States on a private placement basis pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the 'U.S. Securities Act') and in those jurisdictions outside of Canada and the United States which are agreed to by the Company and the Underwriters, in each case in accordance with all applicable laws and provided that no prospectus, registration or other similar document is required to be filed in those jurisdictions. The short form prospectus will be accessible through SEDAR+ at Copies of the short form prospectus may be obtained without charge from Scotiabank at 40 Temperance Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5H 0B4, Attention Equity Capital Markets or by phone at (416)-863-7704 or by email at equityprospectus@ The securities to be offered in the Offering have not been, and will not be, registered under the U.S. Securities Act, or any U.S. state securities laws, and may not be offered or sold in the United States without registration under the U.S. Securities Act and all applicable state securities laws or compliance with the requirements of an applicable exemption therefrom. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities in the United States, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful. About Arizona Sonoran Copper Company ( | ASCU is a copper exploration and development company with a 100% interest in the brownfield Cactus Project. The Project, on privately held land, contains a large-scale porphyry copper resource and a recent 2024 PEA proposes a generational open pit copper mine with robust economic returns. Cactus is a lower risk copper developer benefitting from a State-led permitting process, in place infrastructure, highways and rail lines at its doorstep and onsite permitted water access. The Company's objective is to develop Cactus and become a mid-tier copper producer with low operating costs, that could generate robust returns and provide a long-term sustainable and responsible operation for the community, investors and all stakeholders. The Company is led by an executive management team and Board which have a long-standing track record of successful project delivery in North America complemented by global capital markets expertise. For more information Alison Dwoskin, Director, Investor Relations 647-233-4348 adwoskin@ George Ogilvie, President, CEO and Director 416-723-0458 gogilvie@ Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking information includes, without limitation, statements regarding the Offering, use of proceeds in respect of the Offering (including that the net proceeds from the Offering will fully fund the Company through to a final investment decision at the Cactus Project), the receipt of regulatory approvals, the timing and completion of the Offering, and the future plans or prospects of the Company. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of ASCU to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Factors that could affect the outcome include, among others: future prices and the supply of metals; the results of drilling; inability to raise the money necessary to incur the expenditures required to retain and advance the properties; environmental liabilities (known and unknown); general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties; results of exploration programs; accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry; political instability, terrorism, insurrection or war; or delays in obtaining governmental approvals, projected cash operating costs, failure to obtain regulatory or shareholder approvals. Although ASCU has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results to differ from those anticipated, estimated or intended. Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this news release and ASCU disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise, except as required by applicable securities laws. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Other factors which could materially affect such forward-looking information are described in the risk factors in the Company's most recent annual information form and management's discussion and analysis which is available on SEDAR+ at
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scotiabank holds customer responsible for almost $20K in credit card fraud
Jordon Judge's cellphone rang as he sat in his local Vancouver coffee shop last October — caller ID said the person was from Scotiabank. He had no idea it was actually a fraudster who had manipulated the call display, a practice known as phone call "spoofing." The fraudster said he was calling to flag two suspicious charges that were coming through on Judge's Scotiabank Visa card. Judge said he hadn't approved those charges and the caller said they would be blocked. But two days later, Judge spotted two large charges on his credit card statement, totalling almost $20,000. "Those were not my charges," he told Go Public. "So it was definitely astonishment." It was the beginning of a long and frustrating process, during which Scotiabank continued to insist he was liable for the fraudulent charges. Credit card fraud is a growing problem. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre doesn't track how much money people lose to it, but says that over the past three years, an increasing portion of identity fraud cases have involved compromised credit cards. WATCH | On the hook for $20K: The Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments says complaints related to fraud are the number one issue it deals with, and only e-transfers have more fraud complaints than credit cards. Under federal law, a person's maximum liability for unauthorized credit card transactions is generally capped at $50 unless the bank can prove the customer was grossly negligent in protecting their card. A cybersecurity expert says increasing fraud and the rise in complex technology means financial institutions should be conducting thorough investigations and providing clear evidence when holding customers liable. "All that the bank has done is accuse [Judge] of either negligence or malice," said Claudiu Popa, who has 35 years' experience in cybersecurity and wrote The Canadian Cyberfraud Handbook. "The bank has to prove that the customer is the one who perpetrated this quite significant and sophisticated fraud." Scotiabank declined an interview request, did not answer any written questions and instead sent a brief statement, reminding customers to safeguard their personal information. The fraudster who called Judge asked for his birth date and mother's maiden name, which Judge shared. But then the fraudster asked him to share a "one-time passcode" — a type of two-step verification — that was texted to his phone. Judge says he refused to do that, because the message also told him not to share the code with anyone, and said that no one from Scotiabank would ever ask for it. The fraudster claimed that he stopped the charges from going through and hung up. But two days later, Judge discovered a charge for $17,900 to Anglia Ruskin University in the U.K. on his statement, and a second for $1,800, supposedly paid to someone by the name of Paula S. Taylor. "I wasn't worried at the time because I knew those weren't my charges," said Judge. "I thought I couldn't be held accountable for it." Judge filed a request for compensation with Scotiabank, which sent him a letter a few weeks later, saying the bank had "examined all relevant documentation" and concluded that he was responsible for the charges. The letter did not outline what evidence had been reviewed and did not explain why the bank concluded he should be on the hook for almost $20,000 — plus the growing interest. "When people sign up for credit cards, they're under the assumption that if they get scammed, they're not liable for the purchases made on their credit card," said Judge. "Apparently that's not the case." He appealed, and a second letter — from Scotiabank's Escalated Customer Concerns Office (ECCO) — also found Judge responsible, stating that a one-time passcode was used for the university charge, calling it "a feature that has a proven track record in mitigating fraudulent and nefarious activities". The ECCO letter said that because the code was sent to Judge's phone, it "indicates" that the code was disclosed. Judge appealed that decision, but Scotiabank's Customer Complaints Appeals Office also claimed in a letter that evidence "suggests" Judge revealed a one-time passcode. "Evidence that may 'suggest' something isn't evidence of a fact," said Geoff White, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. "One would like to see more in terms of actual evidence demonstrating that the customer was negligent — rather than simply an assertion." White also said the onus shouldn't be on individuals to prove they are innocent of a crime. "The onus is in fact on institutions to take care of their systems," said White. "Make sure that their processes are secure." Popa, the cybersecurity expert, took a look at Scotiabank's correspondence and says the financial institution didn't provide evidence of "the most basic investigation," which would include reviewing a log of activities that would be time-stamped — such as showing when an individual received the one-time passcode and when it was entered into a web interface. "This was never provided," said Popa. "Nor was there an indication that this kind of log was inspected." Contrary to Scotia's insistence that a one-time passcode is a proven fraud deterrent, Popa says a code sent via email or SMS is vulnerable to "a number of different types of compromises" and is less safe than using an authenticator app. Cellphones can be hacked using malware or spyware and SIM cards can be hijacked — allowing fraudsters to intercept text messages. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre also told Go Public that it recommends people use an authenticator app when possible. "Unlike SMS/text messages or email messages, authenticator apps generate time-sensitive passcodes that are not vulnerable to SIM swapping or potential text message and email interception," wrote CAFC spokesperson Jeff Horncastle. The Quebec-based advocacy group Option consommateurs has been calling on the federal government to strengthen protections for banking customers in cases of fraud. In a proposal to MPs earlier this year, the organization said the Bank Act should require transparency when a bank investigates, and clarify that the burden of proving the customer was highly negligent rests on the bank. Go Public contacted Anglia Ruskin University to ask about the charge on Judge's credit card. A representative said Scotiabank never contacted the university — another disappointment to Popa. "Why would you not contact an organization that you know exists?" asked Popa. "They have a duty to investigate and to protect their customers." After Go Public made several inquiries with the university, it said it conducted an investigation and reimbursed Judge. A spokesperson said it could not elaborate on its findings, such as whether the money was used to pay for someone's tuition. Go Public also asked Scotiabank several times what evidence it had to hold its customer responsible for the fraudulent charges. Although the bank did not reply, it recently credited Judge's bank account — covering the outstanding $1,800 paid to "Paula S. Taylor" and the interest that had accrued on both charges. Judge says no one from Scotiabank contacted him to explain the about-face. "I do think it's ridiculous that it took the media to get involved until they decided they would even act as if they cared," said Judge. Previously, Scotiabank had offered Judge $200 as a "goodwill gesture," but said he would have to acknowledge his claim was resolved and drop any further action. Judge declined. Although he has been fully compensated, Judge had to push for almost eight months, and is still left without any answers about why Scotiabank insisted for so long that he was responsible for the fraud. "My biggest concern is that there are people in his situation … who may not have the ability to pressure their financial institution to be more transparent or to recognize the fact that they might not be guilty," said Popa, the cybersecurity expert. "People are out there who are simply being silently victimized." Submit your story ideas Go Public is an investigative news segment on CBC-TV, radio and the web. We tell your stories, shed light on wrongdoing and hold the powers that be accountable. If you have a story in the public interest, or if you're an insider with information, contact gopublic@ with your name, contact information and a brief summary. All emails are confidential until you decide to Go Public. Read more stories by Go Public. Read about our hosts.
