Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP Announce Lawsuit against Comerica, Inc. on Behalf of Former Employees; Superior Court of California Responds by Issuing Order Against Comerica.NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. & SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP LLP - Lower Layer Protocol and Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Law Corporation announced today that nineteen (19) former employees of Comerica Bank, California, a subsidiary bank of Comerica, Inc. ("Comerica") (NYSE NYSE See: New York Stock Exchange :CMA CMA - Concert Multithread Architecture from DEC. ), filed suit on October 11, 2005, in Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against Comerica Bank for breach of stock options contract; breach of the covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; declaratory relief declaratory relief n. a judge's determination (called a "declaratory judgment") of the parties' rights under a contract or a statute often requested (prayed) for information in a lawsuit over a contract. as to the stock options; unjust enrichment A general equitable principle that no person should be allowed to profit at another's expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. ; conversion; violation of Business and Professional Code 17200 et seq et seq. (et seek) n. abbreviation for the Latin phrase et sequentes meaning "and the following." It is commonly used by lawyers to include numbered lists, pages or sections after the first number is stated, as in "the rules of the road are found in Vehicle Code .; failure to pay wages due; constructive trust; breach of at will employment contract; fraud; declaratory relief as to the employment contract; and violation of Labor Code Section 232. Comerica, Inc. was joined to this cross complaint on October 17, 2005. Additionally, the former employees moved for the court to issue a temporary restraining order temporary restraining order: see injunction. against Comerica to prevent the expiration of the options and to allow for their immediate exercise. The lawsuit that was filed by the former employees alleges that Comerica wrongfully suspended or "froze" the former employees' stock options and that Comerica failed to pay incentive compensation to Business Development Officers pursuant to Comerica's 2004 Incentive Compensation Plan. The former employees allege that Comerica's acts were in retaliation for their going to work for a competitor. On October 17, 2005, The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, entered an order by stipulation against Comerica that all Imperial Bank options issued by Imperial Bank prior to its acquisition by Comerica are immediately exercisable; Comerica options issued under Imperial Bank's Stock Plan and Agreement to former Imperial Bank employees become immediately exercisable; Comerica Stock Options under Comerica's stock plan issued to Comerica employees after the Imperial Bank acquisition had their expiration dates "tolled" (said options will not expire during the pendancy of the lawsuit). |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion