A prominent public company controlled by a strong-willed Wall Street tycoon stopped making contractually required severance payments to its former CEO. Our analysis persuaded us that the company’s decision to suspend severance payments was wrongful, both contractually and morally. However, the facts were complicated and the company hired the best lawyers money could buy, including one of the nation’s most successful and well-reputed trial lawyers, to justify the tycoon’s decision.
Our claim in arbitration was met not only by ten counterclaims alleging that our client had misrepresented amounts he was “leaving on the table” at his prior job when he joined the company, but also by an inverted settlement demand requiring our client to pay substantial sums to the company.
Fortunately, our client had both the resources and the courage to take on his deep-pocketed adversary. We began by studying every piece of correspondence between the relevant individuals during the relevant time frame. This allowed us to put together a detailed and compelling chronology to support our client’s position that he had been entirely transparent in all his communications about leaving his prior employer and joining the company. In addition, our command of the details allowed us to expose the flaws and inconsistencies in the company’s position during the cross-examination of its witnesses, including its highly sophisticated in-house counsel.
The arbitrator dismissed all ten of the company’s counterclaims and awarded our client 100% of the amount owed, plus interest at 9%. In addition, the arbitrator took the unusual step of requiring the company to reimburse over half of the legal fees incurred by our client.