A National Association of Securities Dealers panel has ruled against Credit Suisse First Boston in several key elements in the case of Rogers v. CSFB. The case centers on issues relating to the alledged wrongful termination of two ex-CSFB junk traders, Brian Rogers and his supervisor, desk chief Sal Abbatiello, in marking over $150 million worth of bonds in 1998 (BW, 8/6). Hearings to determine the amount of damages have yet to be scheduled. Rogers is represented by Jeffrey Liddle, of Liddle & Robinson in New York, who declined comment, citing the upcoming hearings.
The July 16 decision, a copy of which was obtained by BondWeek, states that CSFB engaged in "tortious interference," breached Rogers' employment contract in 1997-98, terminated him without cause, "inaccurately and injuriously" described his termination in his U-5 statement, and did not comply with discovery orders from the arbitration panel. NASD staff attorney Rachel Glasgow referred a call to a spokeswoman, who declined comment. A CSFB spokeswoman reiterates that the firm remains optimistic that they will be fully vindicated at the conclusion of the arbitration process.
Last Wednesday afternoon, the NASD panel also agreed to re-open proceedings to determine whether Rogers U-5 form--the NASD form dealing with an employees termination record--was "filed with actual malice" when he was fired from CSFB. In the July 16 ruling, the three-person panel found that CSFB had not acted with malice. Kord Lagemann, a lawyer specializing in securities arbitrations, argues that to an institutional bond trader, a clean U-5 is "directly akin to a life and death issue." He continues that without a "clean" U-5, there is "no chance at all" that Rogers could trade at a major fixed-income dealer, or obtain meaningful employment at a leading bus-side company.