Does The British Business Lady Who Just Felt Really Passionately About Her Clients Having Drinks, Cigarettes, And Pet Names Deserve A Second Chance?

Gang, something's come up in across the pond that needs our immediate attention. I'll get right to it: at issue is whether or not "high powered financial adviser" Amanda Daughters should be allowed to have her job back at Aqua Financial Solutions, the firm she founded and was fired from by the chairman a couple years back. She's currently appealing the decision but ahead of hearing what an employment tribunal has to say, why not give Daughters a trial by jury of her peers? Here's the rub: On January 22, 2010, Daughters left the office to sit down with a couple clients at an off-site meeting place (a bar). Naturally, she got there a few (4) hours early to have a bunch (12*) of drinks. So far, so good. When the clients arrived, one ordered a "spritzer," which was not to Daughters' liking, which would explain why she proceeded to "berate" the woman to the point of tears. Then Daughters had a few more drinks. At this point, things apparently got "hazy" for AD who, while she can't recall much, remembers thinking that making the client cry was "not unduly serious," as the woman accepted her apology. Then Daughters had a few more drinks. Around this time, she "dragged the other client outside to have a cigarette, even though he was a non-smoker" and called him a cunt (which despite her obviously having meant as a joke was received as "shocking and offensive"). Forty** drinks later, Daughters took herself home and despite being more or less black out drunk, had this weird feeling she'd done something she'd be embarrassed about the next day and called up hr chairwoman to let her know she'd "fucked up again and offended a client." Having been there before, Daughters also sent an email to the client the following morning to say "I hope you can forgive me." Unfortunately, the client and the chairwoman couldn't, which resulted in Daughters's firing for "gross misconduct." And while Big D realizes maybe she should have done a few things differently, she's not in agreement a few drinks, a few tears, and a few "you're a cunt"s are necessarily grounds for dismissal. So! Does this lady deserve her job back? On the one hand, perhaps downing 75 drinks prior to and over the course of a client meeting is not the most professional way of conducting business. Okay. That's fair. On the other, she clearly possesses the type of self-awareness any employer would pay good money to have on staff, as evidenced by the "fucked again" call. Please weigh in now. Businesswoman sacked after complaining client drank spritzers [Telegraph] *Guessing. *Ball park.
Author:
Publish date:

Gang, something's come up in across the pond that needs our immediate attention. I'll get right to it: at issue is whether or not "high powered financial adviser" Amanda Daughters should be allowed to have her job back at Aqua Financial Solutions, the firm she founded and was fired from by the chairman a couple years back. She's currently appealing the decision but ahead of hearing what an employment tribunal has to say, why not give Daughters a trial by jury of her peers? Here's the rub:

On January 22, 2010, Daughters left the office to sit down with a couple clients at an off-site meeting place (a bar). Naturally, she got there a few (4) hours early to have a bunch (12*) of drinks. So far, so good. When the clients arrived, one ordered a "spritzer," which was not to Daughters' liking, which would explain why she proceeded to "berate" the woman to the point of tears. Then Daughters had a few more drinks. At this point, things apparently got "hazy" for AD who, while she can't recall much, remembers thinking that making the client cry was "not unduly serious," as the woman accepted her apology. Then Daughters had a few more drinks. Around this time, she "dragged the other client outside to have a cigarette, even though he was a non-smoker" and called him a cunt (which despite her obviously having meant as a joke was received as "shocking and offensive"). Forty** drinks later, Daughters took herself home and despite being more or less black out drunk, had this weird feeling she'd done something she'd be embarrassed about the next day and called up her chairwoman to put it out there that she'd "fucked up again and offended a client." Being well versed in how to rectify such thing, Daughters also sent an email to the client the following morning to say "I hope you can forgive me."

Unfortunately, the client and the chairwoman couldn't, which resulted in Daughters's firing for "gross misconduct." And while Big D realizes maybe she should have done a few things differently, she's not in agreement that a few drinks, a few tears, and a few "you're a cunt"s are necessarily grounds for dismissal.

So! Does this lady deserve her job back? On the one hand, perhaps downing 75 drinks prior to and over the course of a client meeting is not the most professional way of conducting business. Okay. That's fair. On the other, she clearly possesses the type of self-awareness any employer would pay good money to have on staff, as evidenced by the "fucked up again" call. Please weigh in now.

Businesswoman sacked after complaining client drank spritzers [Telegraph]
*Guessing.
**Ball park.

Related

Manhattan DA Pumps The Brakes On Mom/Madam's Brothel Just As It Was About To Really Take Off With The Help Of Her Contacts In The Business World

[caption id="attachment_69903" align="alignleft" width="240" caption="HQ on East 78th Street"][/caption]As the entrepreneurial among us know, successful, brand name business don't just happen overnight. They take blood, sweat, tears and in some cases, other bodily fluids, that the public never sees. Anna Gristina was nearly there. The mother of four (who went by the name "Anna Scotland" professionally) had been providing hookers for to "wealthy, powerful men" ("politicians, top-law enforcement, influential lawyers, bankers, entertainment execs and Fortune 500 businessmen") out of an Upper East Side whorehouse for a decade and a half, had developed a thriving client list willing to pay between $1000 (for a "Dream Girl") to $2000+ (for an “Ultimate Elite Model”) per appointment, and made millions in the process. She was ready for the big time. Just the other day, in fact, Gristina/Scotland was sitting down at the office of her friend and business associate, a Morgan Stanley employee, to hear his plan for "expanding her operation through the Internet." And then this happened. The petite, blond Gristina was caught on wiretaps claiming “to have made millions over the 15 or so years she has been in business as a madam,” Linehan said, according to newly released transcripts of the Feb. 23 hearing...Known in the industry as “Anna Scotland,’’ the Scottish native was nailed as part of a five-year investigation by the DA’s Official Corruption Unit, which probes NYPD and other uniformed officers for possible misconduct. At one point, Gristina was caught on tape saying her law-enforcement pals were “poised to help her out, to let her know if there is trouble on the front that she needs to be concerned about, particularly back during the Eliot Spitzer investigation,” Linehan said, referring to the former governor’s hooker scandal. An arrest warrant was issued for Gristina last month. When cops arrived at her upstate home, where she rescues wild pigs and raises pit bulls, they didn’t find anyone — but a wild boar chased a police officer around, the sources said. Gristina was nabbed soon after in the office of a Morgan Stanley banker and “close friend.’’ It's unclear if the friend was part of MS's dominant tech team (and was entertaining Gristina/Scotland at HQ*) but knowing they tend to go after big fish companies about to pop it's highly probable.** Hot mama is kink link to rich: DA [NYP] High-end madam busted for running upper East Side brothel is a suburban mom with four children [NYDN] *I know the tech team is based in California-- MAYBE THIS DEAL WAS SO HUGE THE GUY WANTED TO INTRODUCE GRISTINA/SCOTLAND TO BIG JIM. **In our minds. Just let us have this.

Repentant British Banks Forcing Clients To Transport Themselves To Olympics, Stay In What Is Basically The Equivalent Of Motel 6, Drink Olde English

Time was, working on Wall Street meant going to great lengths to lavishly entertain clients whose business you wanted to win or keep. Client wanted to party on a yacht with forty Brazilian hookers? You made it happen. Client wanted Jay-Z to perform at his son's Bar Mitzvah? You were on it. Client wanted you to manipulate Libor while simultaneously hand feeding him grapes? All you wanted to know was red or green. Whatever they wanted you delivered and then some and the best part was nobody said anything about it. Nobody  judged, nobody protested, nobody wondered if flying to Hyōgo Prefecture to personally slaughter a cow and bring it back with you in business class so the client's dinner would be fresh was the best use of company money.  Then you nearly take down the global financial system and have to be bailed out by the government and all of a sudden it's like people think they have the right to count your (or in the case of banks still partially owned by the UK, their) money. So you scale back the big outings. You make less of a spectacle. Should be enough to get 'em off your backs, only it's never enough for these people. They're not happy until you're taking clients to Applebee's and suggesting getting one appetizer and splitting an entrée, or inviting them to major international sporting events and then denying them black car service, putting them up in relative dumps, and making them drink malt liquor. Which is more or less what one bank is doing. The games are typically one of the biggest corporate schmoozefests on the calendar, with official sponsors and interlopers alike flashing the cash for the best tickets, best party venues and best celebrity guests. Many banks and other companies spent mightily four years ago in Beijing to show their clients a good time and increase their profile in China. This time around, banks are under pressure to cut costs and avoid displays of wealth that will further inflame an already angry public. What is more, the U.K.'s influence in the world isn't what it used to be, and its economy, mired in recession, doesn't exactly have the growth prospects of China's. And antibanking sentiment here is still off the charts after several years of global financial turmoil. Lloyds is arguably in the trickiest position by virtue of its Olympic sponsorship. The [sponsorship] deal was struck in the heady window between the day London was awarded the games in 2005 and when the global financial crisis kicked into gear—and kicked Lloyds into trouble and, eventually, partial state ownership. One of the main points of such deals is the ability to strut with clients around the Olympic Park—something the bank is largely keeping in check. For one thing, Lloyds didn't buy all of the several thousand tickets allocated to it in the original agreement. And being invited to the games by Lloyds isn't exactly a luxe affair. The bank said "the majority of our guests will travel to and from Olympic venues on public transport." Lloyds also says it won't offer guests transfers to and from airports, and will in some cases put them up at three- or four-star hotels—a contrast to the five-star accommodations frequently used in bank hospitality events. Lloyds has also put the kibosh on Champagne. Happy now? Hold the Bubbly: London Financiers Keep Low Profile at Olympics [WSJ]

Wall Street Bank That Might Consider Entering The Witness Protection Program Screws Zoe Cruz Out Of A Job For The Second Time

[caption id="attachment_76125" align="alignleft" width="260" caption="How people smile when they're plotting cutting your brake lines."][/caption] Earlier this week, it was announced that Zoe Cruz would be closing her hedge fund, Voras Capital Management. Cruz started the fund in 2010, a few years after she was famously fired by John Mack at Morgan Stanley (where she was co-President), for reasons that remain unclear to this day but include theories like: a) the belief that she was responsible for losing the firm a few billion dollars b) a lot of people disliked her-- including this guy named Vikram Pandi who was "not a fan"-- and told Mack they would leave if he made Cruz CEO c) Mack had to blame either himself or Cruz for some losses and he chose her. d) She was, you know, a girl, and the boys didn’t like that. Regardless, the ousting was probably mildly to majorly humiliating for ZC and since Mack-- who she was extremely close with prior to the personnel change-- was the one who told her to hit the bricks, it would have been fair to assume she spent a least a little time fantasizing about  sticking pins in a Mack voodoo doll and/or slashing his tires. In 2009, though, Mack and Zoe had lunch and she told him she wanted to start a hedge fund. And maybe it was it was the fact that he was feeling nostalgic, maybe it was the fact that tragedy + time = comedy, maybe it was the fact that he was still riding high from "saving" Morgan Stanley, maybe it was the wine, maybe it was that he was feeling bad about the unceremonious canning and thought "Oh, why not just give the poor girl some money" but Mack went back to the office and "told bank executives that he would like to help her start her new investment business, according to people familiar with the matter." And when they said, "But John, didn't you fire her for supposedly taking on too much risk and losing the firm $4 billion," he said "[Well], her track record was a very good track record." So Morgan Stanley gave Cruz $20 million and she was on her way. And while we can't say for sure, and we're not suggesting money necessarily heals all wounds, the $20 million and the stamp of approval and the fact that she could say to investors she was trying to raise money from ,"Hey look, even the guy who fired me wants in" probably helped smooth things over and improve MS's standing in the Cruz-missile's eyes. She likely even had nice things to say about her former employer at social gatherings! And then this happened: Last month, Morgan Stanley asked for its money back, disappointed by the hedge fund's performance and worried about the shrinking size of Ms. Cruz's firm, according to people familiar with the matter...The retreat by Morgan Stanley was part of broader moves to sell off assets that Chief Executive James Gorman felt exposed the company to unnecessary risk or otherwise didn't serve clients, the people said...On Thursday, the 57-year-old Ms. Cruz told clients in a letter that she has decided to close down Voras Capital Management. The letter cited "the difficult capital-raising environment for new funds and the enormous uncertainty and volatility in the markets," according to a person who saw the letter. It was signed by Ms. Cruz. Oooo, that's not good. In fact, it's worse than if they'd never given her the $20 mill at all. But to give and take back? Yikes. All those nice things Cruz said about MS and Co? Strike them from the record because they are so over! Don't call, don't write, don't cry don't beg 'cause you're done! Finished! Morgan Stanely Bailed On Firm [WSJ]

Does Your Next Food Eating Challenge Involve Binge Drinking Herbalife's Formula 1 Nutrition Shake?

As many of you know, around these parts we are constantly debating the merits of various financial services employees' food eating challenges. Historically, we've detracted points for allowing the participants far too much time to complete the task at hand (opening bell to close, might as well just make it limitless), an insufficient volume of food (a box of Munchkins, considered by many to be a snack), and lack of originality (vending machine challenges have been done). On the flip side, we've applauded creativity (an investment banker and 500 Starburst enter a room and there's a webcam involved),* obscene amounts of food and enough sugar to cause hyperglycemia (244 oysters, a cupcake of death), and topicality (the delicacy that is the Sausage Pancake Bite: yes! Double Downs: double yes!). Which brings us to this: the Herbalife Food Eating Challenge. New York Observer reporter Patrick Clark noticed that while the Herbalife story has been covered by many an angle so far (the blood-sucking pyramid scheme angle, the grandma angle, the Dan Loeb/UWS hedge fund manager on UWS hedge fund manager angle), the most important angle of all had yet to be explored: the actual ingesting of this stuff angle.

Woman Whose Ex-Hedge Fund Husband Demanded A Cut Of Her Shoes Just Rubbing It In His Face At This Point

Back in June, hedge fund manager Daniel Shak sued his ex-wife, Beth, over assets he claimed she'd hid during the couple's divorce. Said assets were Beth's shoes, which Daniel alleged were kept in a "secret room" and were worth approximately $1 million, 35 percent of which he wanted. It was a bit unclear as to why he was going after the footwear collection three years after the two split (though using the proceeds to relaunch his fund was a possibility) but the heart wants what the heart wants. Anyway, today brings just a couple follow-ups on the Shaks, both of which are slightly more exciting for Beth than Dan. 1. He won't see a single pair of Loubs. A civil suit brought by poker professional Dan Shak against his ex-wife, fellow poker pro Beth Shak, regarding her extensive shoe collection was dismissed in a court in New York after Mr. Shak advised his attorneys that he didn’t want to pursue the issue any further...the opening arguments apparently doomed the case in the eyes of the male Shak. Ms. Shak testified to Judge Daniele that her shoe fetish grew as a response to repeated denials of emotional attention from Mr. Shak. “I would not call these shoes a collection, I would call them a sickness at a particular point in my life,” Beth Shak testified to Judge Daniele as she recounted how Dan Shak would refuse her attempts at romantic encounters, according to the Post. “I tried to get him to go to therapy with me, but it just didn’t work,” the Post quotes Ms. Shak as testifying. “I was so unhappy with my marriage that all I did was shop. There was nothing to our relationship…he and I had nothing.” Further into her testimony to the court, Ms. Shak stated that not only did Mr. Shak know about the shoes but even signed off on all the bills as they came before him. After a break following Ms. Shak’s testimony, Mr. Shak apparently had a change of heart regarding the lawsuit. His attorneys informed Judge Daniele that their client wanted to withdraw the case, which Judge Daniele quickly granted. Looking square at Mr. Shak as she dismissed the case, Judge Daniele is quoted by the Post as stating, “Well, thanks for wasting everybody’s time.” 2. She's going into the shoe business! Now that that the suit is over, Shak, who has an image of a pair of Louboutons tattooed just below her waist, is concentrating one what's next — the launch her own line of shoes. Dan Shak Drops Lawsuit Against Beth Shak Following Opening Arguments [PND] Sexy Singles 2012: Beth Shak [Philly]

Husband's Lack Of Interest In Recreating 50 Shades Of Grey Scenarios Straw That Broke The Camel's Back For British Banker

The couple is getting a quickie divorce that should be wrapped up shortly, if you know anyone both familiar with the plot lines and interested. The wife, a 41-year-old banker earning more than £400,000 a year, claims her husband’s ‘boring attitude’ to sex is evidence of ‘unreasonable behaviour’. In her grounds for divorce, filed at the High Court, she refers to the novel, which tells of the sadomasochistic affair between billionaire Christian Grey and naive student Anastasia Steele. The woman in the court case bought the raunchy book almost as soon as it was published last year and hoped it would encourage her husband to be more adventurous in bed. The wife’s solicitor, Amanda McAlister, a family law expert, believes the case is the first where the new phenomenon of ‘mummy porn’ has triggered a divorce. She said: ‘The woman had been reading the book and wanted to spice up her love life. ‘She thought their sex life had hit a rut – he never remembered Valentine’s Day and he never complimented her on her appearance. So she bought sexy underwear in an attempt to get her husband more involved. She said, “Let’s make things more interesting." ‘But when he still didn’t take any notice she told him he had a boring attitude to sex and she was fed up. ‘He went ballistic when he found out the name of the book she was reading and told her, “It’s all because you have been reading that bloody book”.’ The husband is admitting ‘unreasonable behaviour’ so the divorce can be granted quickly without a contested hearing in which his alleged low libido would be discussed in court. 50 Shades of Divorce: Wife 'inspired' by erotic book says husband failed to meet her expectations [DM] Fifty Shades Of Grey Leads Woman To Divorce Her Husband [NYDN]