Rogue trader sues SocGen for unfair dismissal
Rogue trader Jérôme Kerviel, accused of losing Société Générale €4.9bn (£3.8bn), is to sue his former employer for unfair dismissal, the Times reports. The 31-year-old, who was last month released on bail from prison after 37 days incarceration on breach of trust, fabricating documents, and illegally accessing computers raps, …
Kerviel's Lawyer, Elisabeth Meyer, has told Reuters that no court proceedings have been launched. So unless he has got a new lawyer without telling his old ones etc it is just the Times jumping the gun or not checking their facts properly.
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSL0332624720080403?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews
It's quite clear that SocGen were either grossly incompetent in not spotting what was going on and having such lax procedures as to allow it OR, as he asserts, they knew full well what was going on, were chuffed to bits when it was making them money (and huge fat bonuses!) and he has just taken the wrap now it's all gone tits up.
I suspect he'll just get screwed over anyway but, hey, at least he's having a go at trying to bring some of the bastards down with him!
This poor guy has been used as a scapegoat for SocGens poor performance last year, remember they lost the 5bn euro this year not last and claim that this 5bn has made them fail to meet their targets last.
Besides, this guy did NOT sell the stock in question, it was SocGen that sold the stock at a ridiculous point in time, causing 5bn losses.
Easy to blame one poor sod (with a nice salary) for the companies failings ....
Go on Kerviel, sue them American style!
"Easy to blame one poor sod (with a nice salary) for the companies failings"
IIRC, Kervier got paid sod-all, not "a nice salary" - less than €80k per year...
Letting someone do something he shouldn't have been doing in the first place SocGen should have to pay? That makes sense... who cares if the guy had made them money when he started, he shouldn't have been trading period!
Break the rules and win and you're lauded as a high-flyer, a visionary, an astute player and everyone is happy to turn a blind eye.
Break the rules and lose and you're pilloried as a rogue trader, a fraudster or a criminal by the same people who were previously quite happy to pocket the proceeds of your risk-taking activities!
Except in UK banking, where you seem to get a fat payout win or lose...
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=436232&in_page_id=2
"Except in UK banking, where you seem to get a fat payout win or lose..."
except that case wasn't illegal, just not clever. CEOs of companies who do stupid things traditionaly get paid off, nomatter what business sector they work for. They at least seem to employ clever lawyers when their contracts are written.
It's actually pretty wise from his POV to go after SocGen ; not doing it would imply he accepts dismissal for "gross misconduct", and would give some "flesh" to the SocGen story when time comes of a possible criminal trial. Without streching hair too much, the admitted fault in the realm of working laws could very well be the same one he would face in the criminal court ; it would be a bad idea not to have already disputed it.
But suing them to the contrary is a good move as it is a way to suggest that he wasn't alone in the scheme and that at least, by turning a blind eye, SocGen shares a level of guilt with him. This could lessen his criminal liability in the future.
""Easy to blame one poor sod (with a nice salary) for the companies failings"
IIRC, Kervier got paid sod-all, not "a nice salary" - less than €80k per year..."
€80k is currently just under £63k - sounds pretty nice to me.
You make a company about 1.4 bn euros, that's about 1 *BILLION* pounds, or just over 2 *BILLION* dollars, and all you get is a £63K paycheck?
i'd be in my boss's office threatening him with GBH and the russian mafia if i did not get a 1% bonus of that!
...where employers have no right to dismiss anyone, even in the most extreme of circumstances - quod erat demonstrandum.
SocGen may be guilty of being lax but, come on this guy knew what he was doing. If he is innocent so was Hitler.
Icon? That me.
Excuse me, but his job is as a *TRADER* !! His "crime" is not that he should or should not have *traded* but that he traded way over the limits imposed on him !! When he was making money, the management were quietly pocketing their bonuses. When the times got hard, they panicked and forced the unwinding of the trades he had done at an extremely bearish time !! *THAT* caused the losses !! If they had kept their nerve and hung on, they may have have ridden out these bearish times and the trades may have been fine.
I strongly that SocGen had (and still have) troubles elsewhere within the bank and they are using this poor sod as the scapegoat for their sins !! I support his suing the pantalon off them, if only to expose the sins they were trying to sweep under the carpet !!
