Dangerous precedents

Judge Rules Statements To Your Mother About Your Expected Bonus Don’t Equal A Legally Binding Contract With The Company Paying Your Bonus

Remember Deeb Salem? Goldman Sachs alum who worked at the firm as a mortgage trader for a number of years, despite numerous attempts by rivals to poach him and his self-described Michael Jordan-esque skills? Thought he was going to get paid $13 million in 2010 and told his mom to expect as much, only to be informed the number was more like $8.25 million? Sued the bank for the extra $5 million, demanding it make good on the promise he’d made to woman who’d give him life? He recently got some not great news.

Former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. trader Deeb Salem struck out in his pursuit of almost $5 million in bonus money on top of $8.25 million he received in 2010 as a Manhattan judge upheld an arbitration panel’s decision favoring the bank. State Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten today rejected Salem’s request to set aside the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel’s decision to dismiss his claim and granted Goldman Sach’s request to seal portions of the dispute with the former trader. Salem claimed he helped the bank earn more than $7 billion and told the arbitration panel on Feb. 25 that he was one of the most sought-after investment professionals in the mortgage industry. The panel, described by Salem’s lawyer as a “kangaroo court,” didn’t let Salem call some of Goldman Sachs’ top trading executives as witnesses, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, according to the petition. “What you have failed to do in your application before this court is show any evidence whatsoever that the material that was excluded was pertinent to this case,” Bransten told Salem’s lawyer Jonathan Sack…Sack said in an e-mail after the hearing that he planned to appeal, without specifying which part of the judge’s decision he was addressing.

Earlier: Bonus Watch ’14: Ex-Goldman Trader, Ex-Goldman Trader’s Mom

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

11 Responses to “Judge Rules Statements To Your Mother About Your Expected Bonus Don’t Equal A Legally Binding Contract With The Company Paying Your Bonus”

  1. Guest says:

    Of course the lawyer is going to appeal. He has a dream client – rich and clueless.

    – L. Hutz, Esq.

  2. Tommy Gufano says:

    What a Deeb!

  3. Alt_EST says:

    What about statements from your mother? Because she used to constantly praise me and tell me what a beautiful unique snowflake I am, and if that's not legally binding I might just kill myself.


  4. Guest says:

    A Jewish guy over-promised and under-delivered on a promise to his mom and is now blaming others. Never seen a news story like this before….

  5. Guest says:

    Paging 'UBS Sucks' guy for a lesson on how easy it is for a bank to break it's verbal promises.

    – guy who unfortunately learned this the hard way working there in 2010

  6. St. Copious says:

    I hope there's more to his lawyer's case than pointing out that his client "helped goldman earn more than $7 billion." Because I'm pretty sure that everyone working at Goldman helps it earn however much it earns, and 99% of them have no legally binding claim to a fixed percentage of it…

  7. Rebecca M. says:

    Wish I could sue for all the times I was promised 10 and only got 7.

  8. UBS Head of Legal says:

    How can a kangaroo court have jurisdiction over humans?