Daily Archives: October 24, 2015

J.P. Morgan UK junior bankers fired for cheating on ‘basic’ maths test

lol! And Jamie Dimon says so often in the media that he hires the brightest and smartest bankers. Seems like this is a growing problem on Wall Street.

Nearly a dozen junior bankers, some of them British graduates, told to pay for their own flights home from New York after cheating discovery

British trainee analysts at a leading investment bank’s New York office have been sacked after they were caught cheating in a “basic” maths test, the Telegraph understands.

The disgraced junior bankers are said to have been told to pay for their own flights home after instructors discovered the foul play.

It is understood that nearly a dozen of the trainee analysts at JP Morgan, some of whom are British graduates, were caught sneaking notes into the exam room or copying fellow trainees’ answers.

The firm’s prestigious trainee scheme is among the most competitive in the world, with most successful candidates coming from elite private schools and universities such as Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge.

JP Morgan staff told the Telegraph that the accounting tests were unlikely to have been very difficult, but claimed cheating was commonplace.

Read on.

Language in the contentious clause in the laid-off IT workers’ severance agreement appears simliar to SunTrust filing with the SEC

Good catch and reporting by Computerworld.

What does SunTrust’s continuing cooperation clause say, exactly?

“For a period of two (2) years following the end of my employment with SunTrust, I agree to provide assistance and to make myself reasonably available to SunTrust regarding matters in which I have been involved in the course my employment with SunTrust and/or about which I have knowledge as a result of my employment with SunTrust. It is understood and agreed that such assistance, to the extent possible, will be requested at such times and in such a manner so as to not unreasonably interfere with my subsequent employment. Such assistance may include, but is not limited to, telephone or in-person meetings with SunTrust employees, attorneys and/or accountants, or the provision of truthful testimony by way of deposition, hearing, trial, interview, subpoena response or affidavit. SunTrust will be responsible for any reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by me and approved by SunTrust in connection with such services. I understand that I will not be entitled to any additional consideration or compensation of any kind from SunTrust in exchange for such assistance.”

In 2009, SunTrust filed with regulators a “noncompete, waiver and release agreement” it had made with an executive who was retiring from the bank. The executive was paid $100,000 to sign it. It included a two-year cooperation agreement. (The IT employee agreement borrows some of its language, but differs in other respects. The full agreement with the former executive is here; scroll down for the cooperation clause.)

And here is Suntrust SEC filing of noncompete, waiver, and release agreement with ex-executive and employee William R. Reed, Jr. Notice the verbiage:

Continuing Cooperation. I understand and agree that, in my role at SunTrust, I have been responsible for and involved in numerous matters and projects of a significant and/or confidential nature and that, in some instances, I possess knowledge regarding those and other matters that is unique to me and of value to SunTrust or any subsidiary, and that SunTrust or any subsidiary may have need of my continuing assistance in the future with respect to investigations, audits, litigation or potential litigation related to these matters. I understand that SunTrust’s willingness to provide me with the Consideration is expressly conditioned upon the promises made and obligations assumed by me in this Paragraph 8. I further understand and agree that my fulfillment of these promises and obligations hereafter is a condition precedent to SunTrust’s obligation to provide me with the Consideration set forth herein. I agree, beginning on September 1, 2009 and continuing for a period of twenty-four (24) months immediately thereafter, to provide assistance and to make myself reasonably available to SunTrust and its employees, attorneys and/or accountants with respect to investigations, audits, litigation or potential litigation regarding matters in which I have been involved in the course of my employment with SunTrust or any subsidiary and/or about which I have knowledge as a result of my employment with SunTrust. It is understood and agreed that such assistance, to the extent possible, will be requested at such times and in such a manner so as to not unreasonably interfere with any subsequent employment. Such assistance may consist of, without limitation, telephone or in-person meetings with SunTrust employees, attorneys and/or accountants, or the provision of truthful testimony by way of deposition, hearing, trial or affidavit. SunTrust will be responsible for any reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by me in connection with such assistance. I understand that I will not be entitled to any additional consideration or compensation of any kind from SunTrust in exchange for such assistance.

Busted! After a media backlash, SunTrust axes rule that laid-off workers be ‘on call for two years’ for no pay

US bank SunTrust has pulled a U-turn on a policy requiring laid-off IT workers to provide the company with assistance for no compensation for two years after they have been let go, the company told the Guardian on Friday.

The “continuing cooperation” clause, first reported on by ComputerWorld magazine, would have required laid-off workers to provide the company with information or assistance for up to two years after they were let go. ComputerWorld described the clause as requiring the workers to be “on call for two years” – a characterization that SunTrust called misleading.

When asked about the clause and the employees being offered no compensation for such continued cooperation, Mike McCoy, the company spokesperson, said: “We understand that a clause in our severance agreement was misconstrued versus its use in actual practice and therefore, we have removed it.”

The clause originally read: “For a period of two (2) years following the end of my employment with SunTrust, I agree to provide assistance and to make myself reasonably available to SunTrust regarding matters in which I have been involved in the course of my employment with SunTrust and/or about which I have knowledge as a result of my employment with SunTrust.”

It went on to say that the “assistance” – which could include phone and in-person meetings, testimonies, interviews, trial or affidavits – would “not unreasonably” interfere with the former employees’ new jobs. While SunTrust would cover expenses incurred by the former employees, it would not compensate them for their time.

Read on.