In Thys v. Fortis, the Appellate Division, First Department reinstated a claim of conversion of money for L&R's client against Fortis Bank.

On June 15, 2010, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the trial court's order and reinstated the claim for conversion asserted by L&R's client Jacques Thys against his former employer, Fortis Bank NV. From September 2000 until April 2006, Thys served as Fortis' US Country Manager for Banking Operations. For 2005, Fortis announced that Thys would be paid bonus totaling €375,000. As an expatriate, Thys had the right under his arrangements with the firm to take his bonus in either dollars or euros. Thys had chosen to be paid in euros. Nonetheless, on or around April 14, 2006, Fortis paid Thys $198,230.73, net of taxes. At that time (i.e., April 14, 2006), under the prevailing exchange rate, €375,000 was the equivalent of $454,105.11. The net payment in $US dollars of $198,230.73 was less than what Thys would have received in euros had the bonus been paid in euros (even taking into account tax withholdings).

After discussing the issue with Fortis, Thys agreed to return the money he had been paid, on the express understanding that Fortis would replace that amount, plus provide him with additional amounts (all in euros), to bring his payment up to the full €375,000 that had been awarded to him. In spite of this understanding, after Thys returned $192,000 to Fortis (taking into account reimbursement for expenses totaling $6,230.73 that the parties at that time thought, incorrectly as it turns out, Fortis owed to Thys), Fortis kept, without having secured Thys' permission, all the money that Thys had returned and never paid him back anything. The First Department held, in reversing the lower court, that Thys had properly pleaded a claim for conversion of money under New York common law.

Lawyer:
Ethan Brecher

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/2825_001.pdf

New York Supreme Court Enters Judgment of $202,250.00 on claim for a bonus and expunges defamatory Form U-5 as part of Order confirming a FINRA arbitration award
Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/Tocco-v-Walter-J-Dowd-Filed-Judgment.pdf

L&R’s client, Dawn Conciatori, worked for Prudential Douglas Elliman, LLC ("PDE"), a New York-based real estate agency, as Head of its Corporate Business Development Department (or "Corporate Relocation Department"). In each full year that Ms. Conciatori worked at PDE, the Corporate Relocation Department generated revenues in excess of $1,000,000. Based on her arrangement with the company, PDE was obligated to pay Ms. Conciatori commission payments of approximately $100,000 per year. PDE failed and refused to pay Ms. Conciatori any commissions. On May 12, 2008, Ms. Conciatori commenced an arbitration at JAMS alleging breach of contract and violation of the New York Labor Law. Ms. Conciatori sought payment of the commissions, plus penalties under the New York Labor Law equal to 25% liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On May 18, 2009, an arbitration hearing was held at JAMS before Judge John C. Lifland (retired). On July 6, 2009, Judge Lifland issued an Opinion and Order, awarding Ms. Conciatori total damages in the amount of $570,984.15. The award was comprised of $301,374.48 of withheld commissions; $117,369.55 of interest on the withheld commissions; $75,343.62 of liquidated damages; and $78,846 of attorneys’ fees and costs. David Marek and Marc Susswein litigated this case.

Lawyer(s):
David Marek
Marc Susswein

Web Info(URL) Conciatori Opinion and Award

Liddle & Robinson, L.L.P. (Blaine H. Bortnick, Esq.) has obtained a significant landmark decision on behalf of its client in the amount of $4,580,350.00 plus an order of expungment of its client's FINRA Form U-5. Our client, head of Countrywide's U.S. Treasury trading desk based in California, brought an action against his former employer in connection with the termination of his employment. Our client's employment was terminated after a routine transaction in the February 7, 2008 U.S. Federal Reserve auction of 30-year treasury bonds that, as a result of Countrywide's status as a primary dealer, caused a trading loss which was beyond his control. In an effort to avoid paying Our client his guaranteed compensation pursuant to his employment contract, Countrywide falsely claimed that the termination of his employment was for cause. Although Countrywide knew that our client had not engaged in any wrongdoing, it thereafter attempted to extort a release of our client's legal claims against it by threatening our client with a dirty Form U-5 which it would be filing with FINRA. Our client refused to submit to Countrywide s extortionate threat, and as a consequence Countrywide filed a Form U-5 which stated the reason for the termination of our client s employment as insubordination. Pursuant to an arbitration agreement with JAMS, our client thereafter asserted claims against Countrywide including breach of contract, wrongful termination of employment, and the expungment of his Form U-5. After five days of trial and post-trial briefing, among the Arbitrator's findings was that (1) our client had engaged in no wrongdoing and did not violate any policy or operating practice, procedure or rule of Countywide, (2) Countrywide was aware that our client had not engaged in any wrongdoing as its own internal investigation effectively so determined, (3) Countrywide exhibited a disturbing willingness to file a defamatory Form U-5 which would be relied upon by both FINRA and our client's future prospective employers, and (4) the termination of our client's employment was wrongful. The Arbitrator's finding in favor of our client with respect to his wrongful discharge claim is an important landmark, both in California and nationally, concerning a continually developing exception to the employment at will doctrine. Although California (and virtually all jurisdictions) has a strong public policy of employment at will, the Arbitrator upheld our client's position that there is an exception to this public policy where there is an agreement to arbitrate employment claims. Although this important exception to the employment at will doctrine has yet to be adjudicated by the California courts, the Arbitrator found that [i]f a California state or federal court is called upon to make that determination, it most likely would so decide and would adopt the better and prevailing view nationally (via federal Circuit Court opinions) that " even assuming a strong state public policy favoring 'at will' employment --- a claim for wrongful discharge, based upon a claim of termination without 'just cause' exists under applicable state law, if there is a valid and enforceable contractual provision to arbitrate the circumstances of employment and termination. As a result of these and other findings, the Arbitrator issued an award ordering that our client's Form U-5 be expunged, and that Countrywide pay our client $4,580,350.00 as damages for his breach of contract and wrongful discharge claims.
Lawyer(s):
Blaine H. Bortnick

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/Countrywide-Arb-Award.pdf

Lawyer(s):
James A. Batson

Web Info(URL) www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1066207086&play=1

Lawyer(s):
James A. Batson

Web Info(URL) www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1022015521

L&R's client, Stephen Brooks, was a Florida-based wholesaler for Merrill Lynch Investment Managers LP (MLIM). When Blackrock acquired a majority interest in MLIM in 2006, Brooks lost his job as part a corporate restructuring. MLIM refused to pay Brooks severance pay under its severance pay plan and policy. Brooks sued MLIM under ERISA for violating his rights (he also brought a claim for an unpaid commission). After a three day hearing in April 2008, a FINRA arbitration Panel awarded Brooks virtually everything he was entitled to receive under the severance pay plan, including a cash payment of $94,076, an award of stock and options with a value of approximately $60,000 and an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $55,000. David Feldstein, a L&R associate, assisted on the case.
Lawyer(s):
Ethan A. Brecher

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/brooks_merrill.pdf

Lead counsel Jeffrey L. Liddle won a $14,690,000 arbitration award in favor of 27 former employees of investment bank Robertson Stephens, Inc. for promised 2001 compensation. The case was tried over 79 hearing days beginning in January 2005 and concluding in June 2007, during which testimony was heard from 59 witnesses. Prejudgment interest in the approximate amount of $8,000,000 was also awarded. In the link below read the "Peek Behind an Award" analysis of this case by the editors of the Securities Arbitration Commentator.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/SDOC1553.pdf

Lead counsel Jeffrey L. Liddle won a $14,690,000 arbitration award in favor of 27 former employees of investment bank Robertson Stephens, Inc. for promised 2001 compensation. The case was tried over 79 hearing days beginning in January 2005 and concluding in June 2007, during which testimony was heard from 59 witnesses. Prejudgment interest in the approximate amount of $8,000,000 was also awarded.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/arbitration/1192184403780.html

On July 12, 2007, a New York Stock Exchange arbitration panel awarded a former investment banker employed as an equity derivatives marketer with UBS Securities LLC ( UBS ), 8,906 shares of UBS stock, 37,984 options and cash awards with a combined liquidated value of $3,396,757 in damages and interest. The banker sued UBS for breach of a nondiscretionary bonus agreement and for violating the firm's Equity Ownership Plan (EOP) through which UBS pays its employees deferred compensation. The banker worked within UBS's Institutional Equity Derivatives division from February 2001 until July 2003. In February 2002, the banker's supervisor committed to pay him a $2 million nondiscretionary bonus for the 2002 performance year if he generated at least $20 million in revenue for his department. By year-end 2002, the banker originated more than $27 million on behalf of UBS. UBS failed however to compensate the banker in accordance with the parties' agreement. A UBS human resources professional also negligently represented to the banker that he would be able to retain his unvested deferred compensation upon his separation from UBS. UBS's failure to honor these promises gave rise to the arbitration. Marc Susswein served as lead trial counsel.
Lawyer(s):
Marc A. Susswein

On February 7, 2007 a NYSE arbitration panel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania issued, as part of its award, an instruction to Salomon Smith Barney to pay $146,893.99 on a claim for finder's fees to one of its former stockbrokers.
Lawyer(s):
Ethan A. Brecher

An arbitrator of the American Arbitration Association awarded Paolo Vico, an energy trader and analyst with Catequil Asset Management, L.P., $562,152 in compensatory damages and interest on his claim of breach of an agreement for the payment of incentive compensation. Catequil employed Mr. Vico from July 18, 2002 until January 7, 2004 under an arrangement that provided for the payment of incentive compensation over an above his salary. Despite having worked the entire year of 2003 and performing in a manner entitling him to the payment of a bonus, Catequil failed to pay Mr. Vico any incentive compensation for his services in 2003. Mr. Vico was compelled to file an arbitration claim against Catequil in order to recover his incentive compensation. On November 21, 2006, the arbitrator ruled in Mr. Vico's favor. Mr. Vico was represented by James Hubbard and Marc Susswein of Liddle & Robinson, L.L.P.
Lawyer(s):
Marc A. Susswein
James R. Hubbard

On February 16, 2006, a three-person NASD arbitration panel sitting in Denver, Colorado awarded Thomas Kim, a Financial Advisor for CUSO Financial Services, a San Diego-based broker-dealer that services credit unions nation-wide, $539,000 as compensatory damages for his claims of defamation and breach of contract, among others. Mr. Kim was represented by Ethan A. Brecher and David Marek of Liddle & Robinson, LLP. From 1998 through July 2003, Mr. Kim, a Korean-born immigrant, worked as a Financial Advisor affiliated with the Bellco Credit Union in Denver, Colorado, becoming the credit union's largest producer. In July 2003, CUSO and Bellco terminated Mr. Kim's employment and accused him of making "unauthorized trades" in over 200 clients' accounts. After five days of hearings, the Panel rejected CUSO's defense that it owed Mr. Kim nothing becasue of his allegedly unauthorized trading activity. In January 2001, CUSO replaced FNIC as the broker-dealer servicing Bellco. At this time, CUSO heavily recruited Mr. Kim, the highest producing broker in FNIC's nation-wide operation. Mr. Kim agreed to join CUSO - and bring with him his 1,000 clients and their assets - in exchange for a guaranteed 50% payout and a unique provision in his contract that allowed him to take his clients after five years of service to CUSO. Mr. Kim believed that this five year release would ensure him and his family financial stability well into the future. CUSO and Bellco, frustrated that Mr. Kim negotiated such a high commission payout (the highest in CUSO's nation-wide operation), tried to lower Mr. Kim's commission payout. Mr. Kim resisted, insisting that CUSO and Bellco live up to the terms of the contract. In July 2003, CUSO and Bellco accused Mr. Kim of making "unauthorized trades" in more than 200 clients' accounts. While the "investigation" was pending, CUSO and Bellco again tried to make Mr. Kim agree to a lower commission payout. Despite his weakened negotiating posture with these bogus charges pending, Mr. Kim still refused to agree to the new terms, claiming he was innocent of the charges. On July 29, 2003, CUSO and Bellco terminated Mr. Kim's employment. Adding insult to injury, despite conducting an audit of Mr. Kim that found that he operated within all applicable rules and regulations, CUSO indicated to the NASD on his Form U-5 that it had a pending investigation against Mr. Kim, which spawned an NASD investigation. CUSO also sent Mr. Kim a series of letters threatening him with legal action if he contacted any of his clients. Accordingly, Mr. Kim was unable to get a comparable job and, to this day, has never been able to reclaim his 1,000 clients. At the February 2006 hearing, CUSO failed to present any credible evidence of Mr. Kim's "unauthorized trades" but for an unsubstantiated allegation that he admitted it. Mr. Kim denied this allegation. Further, CUSO's internal documents (produced in the arbitration process) supported Mr. Kim's position that he never made this admission. Moreover, CUSO sent out so-called Happy Letters to approximately 500 of Mr. Kim's clients inviting them to call CUSO's compliance personnel if they had any complaints. According to a letter CUSO sent to the NASD in September 2003, not one client called in response to the 500 Happy Letters. According to this same letter to the NASD, not one client actually complained to CUSO that Mr. Kim made an "unauthorized trade." Notwithstanding the evidence, CUSO told the NASD that Mr. Kim admitted to making - and in fact did make - "unauthorized trades" in over 200 clients' accounts, and the NASD adopted CUSO's "finding," issuing Mr. Kim a "Letter of Caution" in mid-2004. The Panel, by its Award, obviously disagreed with the NASD's finding. In addition, after Mr. Kim filed his Statement of Claim with the NASD, CUSO tried to further smear Mr. Kim's reputation. In early 2004, a former client of Mr. Kim's submitted a complaint that Mr. Kim sold her an "unsuitable" variable annuity in 2000. At this time, CUSO "dismissed" the complaint. Weeks after Mr. Kim filed the arbitration Statement of Claim, CUSO re-opened its "investigation" into this woman's complaint. After the Statement of Claim had been filed, CUSO changed the nature of the woman's complaint to "unauthorized trades" (so it bolstered CUSO's claims that Mr. Kim engaged in unauthorized trading) and settled her $14,500 claim for $28,000. Because CUSO re-opened the investigation and settled the case for $28,000, the incident was reported on Mr. Kim's Form U-5, and, as a result, his employer at the time terminated his employment.
Lawyer(s):
Ethan A. Brecher
David Marek

On January 18, 2006, a panel of three arbitrators from the New York Stock Exchange awarded $772,000 in compensatory damages to Gary Cunningham, a former sales trader at ABN AMRO Securities, Inc. Mr. Cunningham, the co-head of the desk, sued ABN for breach of contract and for violating its Key Employee Equity Programme ( KEEP ), pursuant to which ABN pays its employees deferred compensation. Mr. Cunningham worked on ABN s European Equities desk in New York City from April 1999 through April 2002. In March 2002, Mr. Cunningham proposed to ABN that in exchange for his unvested deferred compensation, he would help transition the bulk of his accounts to ABN s sales traders based in London. The firm agreed, and Mr. Cunningham successfully transitioned his accounts. Days later, ABN reneged, informing Mr. Cunningham that it would forfeit his unvested deferred compensation if he joined a competitor. Shortly thereafter, ABN terminated Mr. Cunningham s employment without cause because he was redundant. ABN argued that it was entitled to forfeit Mr. Cunningham s deferred compensation because he joined a competitor, notwithstanding the terms of its KEEP. ABN argued further that Mr. Cunningham actually resigned voluntarily, although the evidence presented at the eight day hearing revealed otherwise. The Panel, by awarding Mr. Cunningham $772,000, determined that ABN breached its contract with Mr. Cunningham and/or acted in violation of the terms of its KEEP when it forfeited Mr. Cunningham s deferred compensation. David Marek of Liddle & Robinson, L.L.P. served as lead trial counsel for Mr. Cunningham.
Lawyer(s):
David Marek

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/arbitration/1138792343321.html

Richard Pedde, who ABN AMRO hired in 2001 to serve as its Global Head of Sub-Investment Grade Credit Trading based in New York, sued the firm for breaching his employment contract. On May 25, 2005, a NYSE arbitration panel found that ABN AMRO had breached the contract and directed the firm to pay him $633,000 as promised under his contract, plus 9% interest on his claim. Further, the panel found that ABN AMRO owed Mr. Pedde $87,500 in severance pay, plus 9% interest.
Lawyer(s):
Ethan A. Brecher

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/pdfs/2002-010734.pdf

Our client, Robert D. Africk, served as the head of Blaylock & Partners, L.P.'s Investment Banking Group from January 2001 until February 2002. Mr. Africk entered into an employment contract with Blaylock & Partners, L.P. upon his hire that governed his fiscal year 2002 compensation. Blaylock & Partners, L.P. ultimately failed to pay Mr. Africk the compensation to which he was he entitled under that contract, and Mr. Africk was compelled to file an arbitration demand against the firm. On March 24, 2005, after an 8-day hearing, a NASD Panel issued an Award ordering Blaylock & Partners, L.P. to pay $404,616, including $318,116 in contractual damages, $75,000 in attorneys' fees, and all NASD forum fees. Notably, upon our application, the Panel also issued a discovery sanction award against Blaylock & Partners, L.P., in the amount of $2,000, as a result of the firm's late production of emails during the course of pre-hearing discovery.

Click here to read the award.

Our client, Ronald Brown, was an originator in ABN AMRO's Latin America Fixed Income group. In mid-2000, Mr. Brown was promised a guaranteed bonus as one of the firm's key employees, but he ultimately received no bonus for the year. Mr. Brown also claimed that ABN AMRO improperly declared his deferred compensation forfeited. Following a four-day arbitration hearing, a three-member NYSE arbitration panel awarded Mr. Brown $230,000, plus $35,000 in attorneys' fees.
Lawyer(s):
Christine A. Palmieri

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/Frameset.html?displayPage=/arbitration/1115375858519.html

Our client, Jonathan D. Zames, traded mortgage-backed securities for Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank terminated Mr. Zames's employment without paying him his bonus guarantee for 2002. Deustche Bank argued that Mr. Zames was fired "for cause" and thus did not have to pay him the guaranteed amount. On March 17, 2005, after a 7-day hearing, a NYSE arbitration panel disagreed with Deutsche Bank and awarded Mr. Zames $1,072,250.00, representing the amount of money Deutsche Bank owed him under his contract. On August 3, 2005, the New York State Supreme Court confirmed the award and denied Deutsche Bank's appeal to vacate the award. The Court concluded that the arbitrators acted appropriately in making their award.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
Ethan A. Brecher

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/pdfs/2003-014480.pdf

Mr. Galati worked as a Vice President on Deutsche Bank's Asian sales desk from February 2002 through March 2003. For his work in 2002, Deutsche Bank paid him essentially no bonus compensation, claiming his performance was poor. After a four day arbitration before a three person arbitration Panel at the New York Stock Exchange, the Panel issued a decision finding that under Mr. Galati, Deutsche Bank's Taiwan business increased to $1.5 million in 2001 and Claimant was instrumental in the successful Powerchip offering which fees credited to his group. His bonus for 2002 did not reflect these achievements. Accordingly, the Panel awarded Mr. Galati bonus compensation for 2002 in the amount of $41,660, which made Mr. Galati the highest paid Vice President on the sales desk in 2002.
Lawyer(s):
David Marek
Blaine H. Bortnick

Mr. Stoops worked as equity salesman for Deutsche Bank until the firm terminated his employment without cause on August 7, 2002. Mr. Stoops brought claims for wrongful termination and failure to pay him severance benefits. At the four day hearings before a three arbitrator NYSE Panel, Deutsche Bank argued unsuccessfully that it had cause to terminate Mr. Stoops' employment. The Panel awarded Mr. Stoops $114,211.39.
Lawyer(s):
David Marek
Blaine H. Bortnick

On January 14, 2004, after eleven days of arbitration hearings, a panel of three arbitrators from the NASD awarded $381,250 to Robert Walton and $280,550 to Scott Hermo in unpaid bonus compensation and salary on their claims against Nomura, for a total of $661,880. The panel also awarded pre-award interest on those amounts at New York's statutory rate of 9% from the times the amounts were due. Mr. Walton received $98,748.79 in interest and Mr. Hermo received $74,926.33 in interest. Mr. Walton was employed by Nomura as the Head of the Agency Trading Desk, and Mr. Hermo was Trader on that desk. They had asserted claims against Nomura for breach of contract, among other things. The arbitration panel denied Nomura's counterclaims against Mr. Walton and Mr. Hermo.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
Michael E. Grenert

On September 23, 2003, the Honorable William H. Pauley III, United States District Judge, denied in its entirety a motion filed by J.P. Morgan Chase seeking summary judgment on claims brought by a former employee for his unpaid bonus compensation. James Y. Xu, who ran Chase's exotic options trading desk prior to the bank's merger with J.P. Morgan, alleged that he was promised a percentage of the desk's revenues as bonus compensation for 2000. His employment was subsequently terminated on November 28, 2000, at which time the firm offered him a standard severance package and a payment of $365,000. Mr. Xu alleged that he should have instead received bonus compensation in excess of $1.8 million for the over $40 million generated by the exotic options trading desk during his tenure as desk head. In seeking summary judgment on Mr. Xu's claims, J.P. Morgan Chase relied on its written incentive plan, arguing that the plan precluded any oral agreement to pay Mr. Xu a percentage of his revenues because the incentive plan provided the firm with absolute discretion to determine whether and how to pay bonus compensation to its employees. Judge Pauley noted, however, that the discretion provided for by the incentive plan "is fatal to J.P. Morgan Chase's preclusion argument." Because the incentive plan is discretionary, Judge Pauley held, it cannot be enforced as a contract and thus did not preclude the separate oral agreement alleged by Mr. Xu. The Court also held that Mr. Xu's alternative claims for breach of implied-in-fact contract (based on the parties' course of dealing in paying bonus compensation) and recovery in quantum meruit (for the reasonable value of Mr. Xu's services) are similarly not precluded by the incentive plan. Mr. Xu's claim for violation of the New York Labor Law was also upheld. Click here to read Judge Pauley's Order in James Y. Xu v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; 01 Civ. 8686 (WHP).
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
Christine A. Palmieri

Judge: William H. Pauley III

Our client, Orlando Chiossone, was hired into ING’s Latin America Mergers & Acquisitions (“LAMA”) Group in mid-1999. In February 2000, on the day 1999 bonuses were announced, Mr. Chiossone and other members of the LAMA group were told that the group was being disbanded, that their employment was terminated, and that they would receive no bonus compensation. Following a six-day arbitration hearing, a three-member NYSE arbitration panel awarded Mr. Chiossone a bonus of $206,750, plus interest from March 1, 2000 until the date the award was paid. The panel also assessed all forum fees, totaling $11,000, against ING.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
Christine A. Palmieri

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/pdfs/2000-008755.pdf

Our client, James Alban-Davies, was hired by Credit Lyonnais in August 1995 to build and head an emerging markets debt trading and sales group. After receiving substantial bonus compensation for his work in the years 1995 through 1998, he was awarded a zero bonus for 1999 while each of his direct reports received a bonus. Although Credit Lyonnais asserted that Mr. Alban-Davies was not entitled to a bonus because his group did not generate any profit, Mr. Alban-Davies had received bonuses for prior years in which the group had not been profitable. Moreover, the group had been budgeted both to incur a loss in 1999 (larger than that which was actually incurred) and to receive a bonus pool for 1999 in the amount of $1.5 million. Following a nine-day arbitration hearing, a three-member NYSE panel awarded Mr. Alban-Davies $650,000 on his claims of breach of implied contract, quantum meruit and violation of the New York Labor Law, plus interest at a rate of 9 percent from February 15, 2000, the approximate date his 1999 bonus would have been paid. In addition, the panel assessed two-thirds of the forum fees against Credit Lyonnais. The New York State Supreme Court confirmed the award in July 2002 over Credit Lyonnais's objection. The Court held that the award was not in manifest disregard of New York law.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
Christine A. Palmieri

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/pdfs/2000-008631.pdf

On August 23, 2001, a panel of three arbitrators from the NASD awarded $178,004.68 in compensatory damages, plus interest, and $62,434.89 in attorneys' fees to Richard Fisher, a former trader who had worked for Greenwich Partners, LLC. It also ordered Greenwich Partners to pay all of the hearing costs. Mr. Fisher had sued Greenwich Partners for breach of contract. The Panel granted Mr. Fisher's request that pursuant to the Connecticut Wage Law, it award double the amount of his unpaid compensation and his attorneys' fees.
Lawyer(s):
Michael E. Grenert

Our clients, Gregory Cellucci and William Herndon, worked as traders for Goldenberg, Heymeyer & Co. ( GHC ) until they resigned in December 2000. GHC sued Messers. Cellucci and Herndon for breaching the non-competition clause contained in the contracts they signed while working for GHC. The company sought a preliminary injunction and monetary damages. Messers. Herndon and Cellucci counterclaimed for unpaid commissions. The five-person CBOT arbitration panel denied all of GHC's claims and awarded Messers. Cellucci and Herndon $39,768.45 in unpaid commissions sought in their counterclaims.
Lawyer(s):
James A. Batson

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/goldenberg.pdf

Our clients, Rodrigo Fernandez and Robert Link, worked as financial consultants in Merrill Lynch’s St. Louis, Missouri branch office. On March 15, 2001, following 11 days of hearings, a NYSE arbitration panel based in St. Louis awarded them $500,000.00 in damages on their claim that Merrill Lynch had wrongfully deprived them of compensation for their services in establishing a distribution network for Merrill Lynch’s mutual funds in Ecuador, which where they had extensive professional and personal contacts. The panel also assessed forum fees of $17,100.00 against Merrill Lynch.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
James A. Batson

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/pdfs/1999-007590.pdf

On October 4, 2000, a NASD arbitration panel awarded our clients Michael Kukanza and Carmine Ricciardi, foreign exchange currency traders at Merrill Lynch in New York, a total of $415,000.00 in earned but unpaid bonus compensation for their performance in 1994. The arbitration panel also assessed Merrill Lynch the full complement of forum fees, totaling $54,000.00.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9501175.pdf

In this case, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, based in Syracuse, New York, denied Carlisle Leasing International s motion for summary judgment to dismiss our client Walter Valentine s claims for an equity ownership interest in the company. Carlisle is a refrigerated equipment leasing company. As part of his job offer to join the company as President, Mr. Valentine was offered the opportunity to earn up to 5% of the company s outstanding equity. The company ultimately implemented a plan by which Mr. Valentine would earn up to 5% of the company over six years. The plan provided, however, that if an employee were terminated for cause he would forfeit vested and unvested equity participation. The company ousted Mr. Valentine from his position as President in 1996. Mr. Valentine sued the company for deprivation of benefits under Section 510 of ERISA. The Court concluded that Mr. Valentine had established a question of fact for a jury to determine whether he had been forced from the company in order to deprive him of benefits under the equity participation plan, and thus denied Carlisle s request for the court to dismiss the case. Mr. Valentine and Carlisle subsequently settled the case.
Lawyer(s):
Marc A. Susswein

Our client Louis Ventura worked as an investment banker at PaineWebber. He sued PaineWebber to recover an unpaid 1995 bonus and other compensation. Following a 23-day arbitration hearing, the NASD panel hearing his case awarded him damages of $300,000.00, and assessed $14,400 in forum fees against PaineWebber.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
James A. Batson

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9601312.pdf

On November 11, 1999 a NYSE arbitration panel awarded our clients a total of $298,154.76 in bonus compensation, $150,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and assessed forum fees of $17,200.00 against ING. Our clients were junior salespeople and traders at ING, and were fired in February 1998 in a downsizing along with a number of other employees, the day before bonuses were to be paid for their work during 1997. The arbitration panel rejected ING’s defense that bonuses were discretionary, and concluded that each of our clients was entitled to a bonus and interest from the date bonuses should have been paid up through the date of the award.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
Ethan A. Brecher
Christine A. Palmieri

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/pdfs/1998-007179.pdf

Our client, Mary Cassella, worked for Smith Barney as high grade fixed income securities trader from 1978 until 1994. In her arbitration, Ms. Cassella claimed that she was underpaid as compared to comparable men, wrongfully terminated, and deprived of an earned bonus. On September 1, 1999, a NASD arbitration panel in New York awarded Ms. Cassella $135,115.00 on her bonus claim, and also assessed all forum fees of $15,000.00 against Smith Barney.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9503783.pdf

In a July 30, 1999 Opinion and Order (62 F.Supp.2d 611 (D.Conn. 1999)) the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied Koch Investments' motion to dismiss the claims of our client, David B. Linker, who sought promised but unpaid bonus compensation for calendar year 1996. Koch Investments, a subsidiary of the Wichita, Kansas based conglomerate Koch Industries, hired Mr. Linker as a proprietary securities trader. As set forth in the Court's Opinion, Mr. Linker claimed that Koch had promised him a bonus for 1996 in "multiples" of his base salary. Mr. Linker claimed that Koch had agreed to create a bonus pool constituting 15-20% of his trading profits, and that Koch Industries had promised to provide Koch Investments with $100 million in capital for proprietary trading operations, for a minimum of three years, and to permit Koch Investments to leverage that amount up to $1 billion. The Court concluded that Mr. Linker had set forth valid claims, subject to ultimate determination by a jury, for breach of contract, quantum meruit and breach of Connecticut's Wage Law (in connection with the failure to pay him the promised bonus) as well as promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation (in connection with Mr. Linker's decision to forego other job opportunities based on the strengths of Koch's promises). Following the Court's decision and before trial, the case settled.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
Michael E. Grenert

Our clients, Douglas Bennington, Sandra Carrithers, Richard Daskin, John Engles, John Sampson and George Selby, worked as bankers in DLJ's Public Finance Division, and were terminated in connection with DLJ's closure of that division in 1995. We filed an arbitration claim on their behalf against DLJ for violation of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). Under the WARN Act, where a mass layoff or plant closing occurs, affected employees are entitled to 60 days of advance written notice. If the notice is not given, the WARN Act provides that employees are entitled to up to 60 days of back pay, benefits and attorneys' fees in pursuing their claims. In this case, DLJ failed to provide the written notice as required by the federal statute. Following 5 days of arbitration hearings at the NASD in New York, a NASD arbitration panel awarded our clients $268,015 plus interest on their claims. The arbitration panel also assessed $4,000.00 in forum fees against DLJ.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9503895.pdf

Our client, Michael McCabe, worked as a stockbroker for the brokerage firm D. Blech & Co., Inc., which specialized in underwriting stocks of biotechnology companies. Mr. McCabe filed an arbitration claim against D.Blech & Co. for unpaid commissions of $53,000 and 12,488 underwriter warrants in 12 different companies. In August 1998, an NASD arbitration panel awarded Mr. McCabe the full complement of damages and underwriter warrants he was seeking in his case. The panel also assessed D. Blech & Co. $3,000 in forum fees.
Lawyer(s):
Ethan A. Brecher

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9707310.pdf

Liddle & Robinson represented 40 bankers from C.S. First Boston’s municipal finance division who were fired in connection with the closing of that division in 1995. First Boston failed to pay any of these bankers a bonus for their work, even though the department had profits in excess of $7 million. Thirty nine of our clients settled their claims after initiating arbitration proceedings, and one, Mario Marsano, pursued his claims through a complete arbitration hearing. On June 29, 1998, the NYSE arbitration panel hearing his claims awarded him damages of $500,000.00 and also awarded him attorneys’ fees of $75,000.00. The panel assessed forum fees of $18,450.00 against First Boston.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
James A. Batson
Marc A. Susswein

Web Info(URL) www.nyse.com/pdfs/1995-005313.pdf

Our client, Robert Jones, joined a Cleveland, Ohio Salomon Smith Barney branch office as a stockbroker. Shortly after he joined Smith Barney from PaineWebber, his employment was terminated allegedly because he had failed to disclose a customer complaint. Mr. Jones claimed that he had made all appropriate disclosures to Smith Barney, and an NASD arbitration panel agreed, awarding him $25,000.00 in damages. The panel also sanctioned Smith Barney $5,000.00 for misconduct during the hearing and assessed it forum fees of $5,100.00.

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9504058.pdf

George Schott and Michael Basham served as senior managers in Smith Barney’s International Capital Markets Division. Despite demonstrating outstanding leadership skills in managing the department and negotiating profitable alliance and joint ventures, Smith Barney terminated their employment and failed to pay them bonuses and appropriate severance compensation. Following 18 days of hearings, an NASD arbitration panel awarded them a total of $449,720.29, plus interest. The panel also assessed Smith Barney $29,850.00 in forum fees.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
Ethan A. Brecher

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9503121.pdf

Marc Helie worked as a trader in Merrill Lynch s Emerging Markets Group from 1989-1994. Merrill Lynch terminated Mr. Helie s employment in 1994 without paying him a bonus, and shortly before he would have vested in a number of stock options that had been awarded to him previously. Following an 11-day trial, a NASD arbitration panel awarded Mr. Helie $600,000.00 and also directed Merrill Lynch to deliver to him 7,056 shares of its common stock, then valued at $230,202, together with all dividends declared from July 31, 1994. The panel also assessed Merrill Lynch $12,250.00 in forum fees.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9501297.pdf

Our firm represented the London-based Royal Academy of Dancing in a long-running dispute with its former United States administrator. The Royal Academy is a private organization chartered by the Queen of England to promote and teach ballet. It maintains offices around the world and is recognized as one of the premier organizations for the advancement of ballet. The Royal Academy terminated the employment of it U.S. administrator, and she sued for breach of contract and libel. The Royal Academy filed its own lawsuit against the administrator alleging unfair competition and conversion of its funds. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed all of the administrator's claims except for one seeking compensation for her services in developing a ballet summer session program. The case ultimately settled on terms highly favorable to the Royal Academy.
Lawyer(s):
Ethan A. Brecher

Richard Kelley worked as a stockbroker in Prudential's St. Louis, Missouri branch office. Prudential suspended him after he was indicted by a federal grand jury in March 1992. The U.S Attorney on St. Louis dismissed the indictment in July 1992, and Prudential reinstated him two months later. Nonetheless, in February 1993, Prudential fired him, allegedly for failure to generate sufficient commission production. Prudential then sued Mr. Kelley to recover $61,010.93 it claimed was from a sign-on bonus that was paid in the form of a 4-year forgivable loan. Mr. Kelley filed a counterclaim, alleging that he had be terminated wrongfully because he had been indicted (albeit without basis) and because of his age, and that his ability to generate commission income had been injured by Prudential s mismanagement of his client relationships during his suspension and based on its harassment of him following his reinstatement. Following a 17-day arbitration hearing in St. Louis, a NASD arbitration panel denied in full Prudential s claim, and awarded Kelley $360,000.00 in compensatory damages, $40,000.00 in punitive damages, $127,000.00 in attorneys fees, and an additional $27,000.00 in the form of sanctions for Prudential s misconduct during the arbitration hearing in connection with its withholding and altering of documents, for a total award of $554,000.00. The panel also assessed Prudential $52,500.00 in forum fees. The case was also noteworthy because Prudential fired its counsel in the middle of the case, after it became clear that the lawyer had deliberately withheld incriminating documents.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
James A. Batson

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9301612.pdf

Margaret Reichenbach owned a one-third interest in an investment banking and financial advisory partnership called Southport Partners, which she joined in 1988. She withdrew from the partnership in 1993, and sought, in court, the dissolution of the partnership, a winding up of its affairs and her share of the partnership s assets under Connecticut s partnership law. Southport Partners resisted winding up the partnership, and Ms. Reichenbach asked the court to appoint a receiver to wind up the partnership or alternatively for an injunction, setting aside funds to ensure that her partnership interest would be preserved during the dissolution proceeding. Ms. Reichenbach possessed evidence that Southport Partners was manipulating its assets and business records in a manner that would cause her substantial partnership interests to be lost if extraordinary relief, such a injunction, was not issued pending a full resolution of the partnership wind-up. (The Court also ordered the dissolution proceeding to be decided by a NASD arbitration panel, because part of Southport Partners business was managed through a NASD registered broker-dealer.) The Court granted Ms. Reichenbach s request for a injunction, and directed Southport Partners to either deposit $600,000.00 into an interest bearing account or to refrain from making any expenditure not in the normal course of business, including any payments in the form of bonuses or profit distribution. The Court also prohibited Southport Partners from destroying records, and further directed it to return to its offices any documents that may have been removed (as Ms. Reichenbach had alleged). Finally, the Court permitted Ms. Reichenbach, and us as her counsel, to enter Southport s premises to inspect the partnership s business records. Southport Partners subsequently settled Ms. Reichenbach s claims.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle
Blaine H. Bortnick

Our client, Robert Sternberg, joined Morgan Stanley as an analyst based on specific promises concerning guaranteed compensation. Morgan Stanley reneged on its promises shortly after he joined and after he resigned form another job. A NYSE arbitration panel awarded Mr. Sternberg $110,000 on his claims.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/1900-001523.pdf

Our clients Paul Patrello and David Weiss, joined Jefferies in New York in order to help build a high yield corporate bond sales and trading department. Jefferies promised them certain salary and bonus compensation, as well as an equity interest in the firm. After Messrs. Patrello and Weiss joined Jefferies, the firm changed focus and hired a group of high yield salesmen to work in Los Angeles. After Jefferies effectively closed the New York-based high yield sales and trading operation, Messrs. Patrello and Weiss left the firm. They then sued Jefferies for unpaid bonus and equity compensation. On July 14, 1992, an NASD arbitration panel awarded them each $416,667, for a total award of $833,334.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/9101875.pdf

William P. Nicoletti worked for E.F.Hutton from 1969 until his employment was terminated in 1989. At the time of his termination he served as a senior voce-president in E.F. Hutton’s corporate finance department. Mr. Nicoletti sued to recover unpaid bonus compensation. On December 7, 1990 a NASD arbitration panel awarded him $200,000 and assessed forum fees of $10,000 against E.F. Hutton and Shearson.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/8902600.pdf

Our client Dennis Emerick was employed as a senior U.S. treasury bill trader for Deutsche Bank from March-July 1989. Deutsche Bank fired Mr. Emerick four months after hiring him. He then sued Deutsche Bank to recover, among other things, bonus compensation and severance he claimed was due to him under his employment agreement. On November 1, 1990 a NYSE arbitration panel awarded him a total of $65,416.68 plus interest of 9%.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/EmrickVDeutscheBank.pdf

Our client, Michael Magness, sued his former employer Human Resources Services, Inc. for breach of contract. Mr. Magness and his employer settled his case for $79,000, but the company subsequently failed to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement. Mr. Magness thus sued his employer for breach of the settlement agreement and for attorneys' fees and liquidated damages under the New York Labor Law. The Court held that Mr. Magness was entitled attorneys' fees and liquidated damages of $19,750, in addition to the $79,000, because the company had willfully breached the settlement agreement. The decision is significant because the Court held that where an employer breach a settlement agreement based on a wage claim, then the New York Labor Law could be applied to providing an employee a means to recover attorneys' fees and liquidated damages under the statute.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Our clients served as high yield salesmen at Dean Witter, and sued for unpaid bonus compensation. A NYSE arbitration panel ordered Dean Witter to pay Mr. Kelly $404,294 and Mr. Newcomb $196,785, for a total of $601,079 in addition to $69,105.16 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The panel also assessed all forum fees of $16,000 against Dean Witter, and also dismissed Dean Witter’s counterclaim against Mr. Kelly for return of compensation from 1987.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle

Web Info(URL) www.liddlerobinson.com/pdf/KellyNewcombVDeanWitter.pdf

In perhaps the first securities industry arbitration award made in favor of an employee, we secured a $75,750.00 award in favor of our client, William Kelly – one of the industry’s leading high yield corporate bond salesmen and traders – against Prudential Bache on a breach of contract claim. This award was made after Mr. Kelly had mitigated his damages by $825,000. The five-member arbitration panel, which was standard for arbitration panel’s at the time, also assed Prudential Bache with $2,250.00 in costs. This groundbreaking award paved the way for employees to vindicate their rights in arbitration in the following decade.
Lawyer(s):
Jeffrey L. Liddle