Texas Executive Employment Agreements: Checklist for Employees


Employees signing employment agreements in Texas should be mindful of the following potential terms:

            1.         Term of Employment. Employment agreements are typically either for a fixed term or are at-will. An at-will agreement, obviously, can be terminated by either party at any time for any reason. Some agreements contain “Evergreen” provisions, which state that the term of the agreement shall be automatically extended unless one of the parties notifies the other of its intention that the agreement expire at the end of the then current term (with such notice typically being due thirty or sixty days before the end of the term). Moreover, some employment agreements that are purportedly for a fixed term (e.g., a one-year term) also contain provisions pursuant to which the employer may terminate the employee “for any reason” on shorter notice (e.g., “thirty days’ notice”)—such an agreement is in reality a 30-day employment contract.

            2.         Position, job duties, location. Employment agreements routinely contain provisions outlining what the employee’s title will be, what his duties will be, to whom he will report, where he will work, etc. From the employee’s perspective, it is important that these terms be fairly well defined. For example, does the agreement allow the employer to transfer the employee out of state, or are there restrictions on the employer’s ability to do so? Does the agreement permit the employer to alter the employee’s job duties, or to change the person to whom the employee reports? Especially from the employee’s perspective, it is important that the agreement define these terms with some precision.

            3.         Compensation. Employment agreements typically reference some guaranteed compensation (e.g., salary) and some discretionary compensation (e.g., bonuses and stock options). On the guaranteed part, employees need to know whether they are to be classified as “exempt” under the FLSA or non-exempt. Employees need to know what must occur for the bonus to be paid. Is payment of the bonus totally discretionary? Does it depend upon the company’s performance, or the employee’s performance, or both? Granting of stock options often usually will be governed by a separate plan, and the employee needs to know what its terms are.

            4.         Termination for Cause.  Employment agreements often provide that an employee may be terminated for “cause,” and “cause” is defined to include various acts or omissions by the employee. Some of the acts—such as commission of a felony, or embezzlement of company funds—are fairly easy to understand. However, defining “cause” to include the employee’s failure to perform her job duties may be somewhat problematic from the employee’s perspective, because whether the employee is performing well can be subjective. Generally, employees want what constitutes “cause” to be defined as precisely as possible. Even in an at-will employment agreement, whether “cause” exists can be relevant for other reasons—e.g., whether the terminated employee is eligible to receive severance benefits.

            5.         Termination for Good Reason. Employment agreements for a specified term often set forth situations in which the employee may voluntarily resign. “Good reason” for the employee to terminate might exist where the employee is demoted, or his pay is cut, or he his transferred. Again, even in at-will employment situation, the concept of termination for “good reason” might be relevant to whether the employee receives severance benefits.

            6.         Nondisclosure Agreements. Employment agreements routinely contain provisions prohibiting the employee from disclosing the employer’s confidential or proprietary information to a third party. An employee needs to know what information the employer considers to be confidential or proprietary.

            7.         Noncompete Agreements. Especially for salespeople, executives, or managers, employment agreements can contain provisions limiting an employee’s right to compete with the employer, both during and after employment. The provision usually will specify certain activities in which the employee may not engage, and will typically contain a geographic scope as well. The employee will want to fully understand how long the non-compete lasts, and what it precludes the employee from doing (both in terms of the activities to be restrained and the geographical scope of the restrictions).

            8.         Nonsolicitation Agreements. Along with noncompete provisions, employment agreements often contain provisions prohibiting the employee from soliciting the employer’s customers, or its employees, or its vendors. In Texas, these provisions can be enforceable, but they are held to the same standard to which noncompete agreements are held—i.e., the employer must give consideration to the employee (such as confidential information) that justifies the nonsolicitation provision, and the provision must be reasonable in scope.

            9.         Change in Control. What happens if the employer is purchased by another company? Should that affect the employee’s obligations? Should the employee be able to escape his noncompete and nonsolicitation obligations? On a related note, should the employer be able to assign the agreement to another company (so that the “new” company can enforce the employee’s noncompete and nonsolicitation obligations)? Employment agreements don’t always address these issues, but employees are wise to think about them.

            10.        Arbitration. More and more, employment agreements state that legal disputes between employers and employees must be submitted to binding arbitration (versus being litigated in court). Provisions like this can be one-sided (i.e., sometimes, only the employee is required to arbitrate its disputes, whereas the employer can go to court). Employers need to be mindful of the effects of agreeing to arbitrate disputes as opposed to litigate them.

            11.        Choice of Law and Forum Selection. Employment agreements usually specify the state whose law will govern the agreement, and they sometimes specify the place where suit must be filed in the event of a legal dispute. The latter can be especially problematic for an employee, because it may require her to bring any claims she may have in a foreign state, which can be very expensive.

Conservative Victories at United States Supreme Court


By now, everyone has heard about the United States Supreme Court's scaling back of the McCain Feingold campaign finance law.  But as this article points out, the naming of John Roberts and Samuel Alito as justices--and the increased tendency of Anthony Kennedy to side with the Scalia wing of the Court--has resulted in conservative wins in several cases:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501047.html?hpid=topnews




Texas Securities Industry Attorney: New York Gives Absolute Privilege for NASD Form U-5

Most companies, when they terminate an employee, refuse to disclose the reason for termination to a potential subsequent employer. Companies know that disclosing the reason for termination to a third party may subject them to a defamation suit. As a result, they typically reveal only the ex-employee’s dates of employment and position held.

For companies that are members of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), however, silence is not an option. Pursuant to NASD rules, an employer member firm must file with the NASD a form stating the reason for terminating a registered representative (broker). This “Form U-5” must be submitted within 30 days of termination, and a copy of the U-5 must be given to the terminated broker.

The NASD stores the U-5 on its online registration and licensing database, which is accessible by other member firms and, upon request, by potential investors. Thus, a terminated broker’s potential future employers and any person contemplating doing business with the broker will be able to learn why the broker was terminated.

Because the information provided on a Form U-5 can adversely affect a terminated broker’s efforts to obtain future employment, as well as the broker’s ability to do business with potential clients, statements contained in U-5s are often the subject of defamation claims filed by brokers against their former employers. In such cases, brokers dispute the reasons given for termination, and they contend that the existence of the U-5 has caused them economic harm.

Some states provide an employer defending against a U-5 defamation claim a qualified privilege defense. The qualified privilege does not bar the former employee’s defamation claim. However, it does require the former employee, in addition to proving that the statements in the U-5 were false and harmful, to show that the employer acted with malice (i.e., that the employer knew or should have suspected that its proffered reasons for termination were false). Although Texas cases dealing with U-5s are few in number, it appears that NASD-member employers in Texas enjoy a qualified privilege.

Recently, the highest court in New York gave NASD member firms total protection from U-5 defamation claims. In Rosenberg v. MetLife, Inc., 2007 WL 922920, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 02627 (Mar. 29, 2007), the Court of Appeals of New York held that statements on an NASD Form U-5 are absolutely privileged. Unlike a qualified privilege—which constitutes a defense to a defamation claim—an absolute privilege bars the claim. Thus, in New York, there is no claim for defamation based upon a U-5 filing.

The New York court based its decision on several factors. First, the court acknowledged the strong public interest in knowing about brokers who engage in illegal or unethical conduct. The court noted that it had previously granted an absolute privilege to persons who submit grievance letters against attorneys, and it stated that “the regulation of registered brokers in the securities industry is of no less importance” than ensuring that attorneys comply with the law. Indeed, with an absolute privilege, employers may be more forthcoming about a broker’s wrongdoing (whereas currently an employer is well advised to be cautious about what it puts on the U-5).

The court also viewed the filing of the Form U-5 as a “first step in the NASD’s quasi-judicial process.” The court saw the form as “the first indication that the NASD receives regarding possible misconduct by members of the securities industry, and investigations of misconduct reported on the Form U-5 frequently lead to the initiation of disciplinary action by the NASD.” Because statements in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding were absolutely privileged, the court held, statements that naturally would result in such proceedings should enjoy the same degree of privilege.

The dissent disagreed, arguing that unlike complaints submitted to an attorney grievance committee, which are confidential, potential future employers in the securities industry must view an individual’s Form U-5 during the hiring process. Thus, a statement in a Form U-5 would represent a “danger of substantial harm to the individual about whom the statement is made.” Furthermore, the dissent was skeptical of the majority’s claim that a Form U-5 was a preliminary step to a quasi-judicial proceeding, noting that the filing of a U-5 imposes no duty upon the NASD to investigate the statements contained therein. In response to employer concerns, the dissent also observed that “truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim.”

Given New York’s preeminent role in the securities industry, other courts may adopt the majority’s reasoning. Potential investors have a significant interest in knowing about unscrupulous brokers. That right to know may be held to outweigh a broker’s ability to sue his former employer for defamation, particularly since the absolute privilege defense does not preclude the broker from filing an arbitration to expunge the alleged defamatory language. Also, if other states follow New York’s lead, the NASD may begin to more carefully scrutinize and investigate the U-5s they receive, and the NASD can penalize firms which include untruthful statements therein.

Are Changes to Sarbanes Oxley Imminent?


Interesting article on adverse effect that Sarbanes Oxley is having on American businesses and financial markets.  Could changes be around the corner?

www.opinionjournal.com/diary/