FINRA Settlement Shaves 2/3rds off Employee Promissory Note
1 ReplyJump to last post
Let's All Settle Down: Former Employer and Employee Work It Out At the Last Minute
Following former associated person Jonathan Ted Marcu’s termination of his employment, a dispute arose concerning the repayment of a promissory note (Note) and monies owed; and, as a result, his former employer, SMH Capital, Inc., filed a FINRA Arbitration Statement of Claim against Marcu. In the Matter of the Arbitration Between SMH Capital Inc., Claimant, versus Jonathan Ted Marcu, Respondent (FINRA Arbitration 08-04963, May 3, 2010). Claimant SMH sought $112,500 in compensatory damages with interest at the rate of 5%, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.
Loading for Bear?
Respondent Marcu denied the allegations and asserted affirmative defenses including:Claimant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; Claimant rendered Respondent contractually unable to perform under any employment agreement and/or the Note; Claimant affirmatively committed acts that constructively discharged Respondent from further performance under the Note and made him unable to perform without breaching the Note; Respondent was fraudulently induced into entering into an employment agreement and the Note; Claimant is stopped from enforcing the Note as a result of its acts, commissions, representations, and course of conduct, and for maintaining a position inconsistent with one which it had previously taken; Claimant was barred from recovering attorneys’ fees or costs; Respondent was entitlted to a set-off for losses incurred as a result of Claimant’s conduct Claimant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in any agreement and/or promissory note; Claimant failed, in the conduct of its business, to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade as required under FINRA Rule 2110; and Claimant failed to attach any agreement and/or promissory note to its Statement of Claim.
TO READ THE INTERESTING RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE -- WHICH RESULTED IN A NEARLY 67% DISCOUNT FOR RESPONDENT -- VISIT: