Ex-Soli Equity Chief Bags $550,000 In Arbitration Case

© 2025 GlobalCapital, Derivia Intelligence Limited, company number 15235970, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX. Part of the Delinian group. All rights reserved.

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement | Event Participant Terms & Conditions

Ex-Soli Equity Chief Bags $550,000 In Arbitration Case

A former Salomon Smith Barney co-head of Latin American equity derivatives has won USD550,000 in a New York Stock Exchange arbitration claim that the firm did not pay an agreed bonus and wrongfully terminated him. Ricardo Litvak, who now works at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, a subsidiary of Credit Suisse First Boston, claimed SSB "induced him to take a job, but did not pay the agreed upon compensation," according to the NYSE arbitration decision. Litvak also claimed the firm took credit for his investment ideas and wrongfully terminated him, the decision states. The claim, filed March 3, 1999, sought compensatory damages for more than USD1.5 million, plus punitive damages, costs and fees, according to the arbitration decision.

SSB's attorney, Jill Rosenberg, partner at Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe in New York, said she was not authorized to comment. Calls to SSB's legal department in New York were referred to a spokeswoman, who declined to comment.

Litvak declined to comment on the matter or his current position, referring calls to his attorney, David Wechsler, partner at Wechsler Bursky & Cohen in New York. Wechsler said the arbitration panel rejected the notion that bonus payments are at the discretion of the firm. SSB promised Litvak an annual base salary and bonuses consistent with industry standards, Wechsler noted, and said the arbitration was a matter of fair compensation. When SSB decided to restructure the firm it closed the Latam unit and offered him a separation package, but it did not pay him a bonus for the 10 months he worked there, Wechsler said.

Philip Hoblin, Jr., partner withJenkens & Gilchrist Parker, Chapin in New York, who was not involved in the matter, said the award was a hefty one, but the panel's reasoning is unclear since it followed normal arbitration practice of issuing an award but did not release an opinion.

Related articles

Gift this article