Elsewhere in bonus news this week, remember Jonathan Hoffman? He's the former Lehman Brothers trader who ultimately became a (now former) Barclays trader, but not before he considered his many options elsewhere (Citadel, SAC, Millennium, any firm you can think of). Which is why, according to Hoffman, the $83 million he was paid by the British bank was part of a separate employment agreement and not the $83 million Lehman Brothers owed him, which he is currently fighting for. Anyway, the Journal has an update on his story today and in addition to some totally relevant color about Hoffman's figurative and literal stature at Lehman...
...Hoffman was the most profitable member of his group and “was viewed as one of the best proprietary traders in the market.” On a desk that featured several former college athletes and at times had a locker-room feel, the short, slender Mr. Hoffman wasn’t the norm but was generally sociable, one former trader said.
Barclays declined to comment, but the testimony of a bank executive only added to the ambiguity of whether Mr. Hoffman was a victim of the bankruptcy or is being greedy. In a deposition, Michael Keegan, a Barclays managing director, recalled thinking Mr. Hoffman was a “sneaky bastard” for seeking payment from the Lehman estate. “I thought he was paid for it” by Barclays, Mr. Keegan said. But then under questioning from Mr. Hoffman’s lawyer Mr. Keegan conceded that, in fact, Barclays chose to pay Mr. Hoffman and “we were under no obligation that I know to do that.”
Far be it from us to do the trustee's job for him but it seems like if you've got a guy basically saying, "Yeah he was a sneaky little f*ck. Didn't like him one bit. Tried to get him fired a number of times, may've egged his house once or twice. But yeah, it's possible he deserves the dough," maybe the man's got a point?