Law Firms
Paul Hastings Warned AIG of Double Liability for Failure to Pay Bonuses
Posted Mar 24, 2009 6:10 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Lawyers at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker warned AIG that it faced double liability if it failed to honor contractual obligations to pay bonuses.
AIG confirmed that it was advised by Paul Hastings on bonus obligations, the American Lawyer reports. Hogan & Hartson lawyers were on hand when AIG chief Edward Liddy testified before Congress, but that firm refused to reveal its role in the bonus controversy, the story says.
Connecticut state law gives employees the right to obtain double damages and attorney fees if a company unlawfully withholds pay, according to the American Lawyer. The insurer’s troubled financial products unit is located in the state.
Paul Hastings employment partner Patrick Shea stated his opinion in a letter to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
"We believe there is a clear contractual obligation” to pay promised bonuses, the letter said. The bonuses could be withheld only if an employee is fired for cause or for failing to meet performance standards, or if an employee resigned without good reason.

Comments
B. McLeod
Mar 24, 2009 6:25 AM CST
What kind of a large firm can’t find a way to slip out of paying bonuses??
Flag this comment
LegalMinded
Mar 24, 2009 8:00 AM CST
So, a company cannot waive bonuses if it is financially in a bad shape?? Very illogical that we, the taxpayers, have to cover a company’s contractual obligations just because the employees were promised millions of dollars that the company cannot make.
Flag this comment
associate
Mar 24, 2009 9:08 AM CST
legal minded, would you expect to get your “bonus” if you were a salesman who contractually agreed to a reduced salary in exchange for a percentage of your sales? This is essentially the situation for what looks to be about 70% of the bonus money.
THIS IS WHY THE GOVN’T SHOULDN’T GET INVOLVED IN RUNNING COMPANIES. BANKRUPTCY COURTS WERE CREATED FOR A REASON.
Flag this comment
DBerlin
Mar 24, 2009 9:42 AM CST
Strange that AIG used a law firm with no Connecticut office to advise it on a critical point of CT employment law. We all know that employment issues vary wildly from state to state. No matter how good the NY lawyer is, he or she has little insight into how the CCHRO (the CT agency that considers these things) or a CT court will enforce the statute in actual practice. Expensive does not mean qualified.
Flag this comment
Tax Practitioner
Mar 24, 2009 11:34 AM CST
DBerlin- Not true. FYI Paul Hastings has had offices in CT until very recently. Also, it is very easy for a NY firm to have CT barred attorney. Or a Chicago firm can have a CT barred attorney. The issue is not necessarily the physical location of the lawyer.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.