Ex-BNY Mellon Exec Says He Was Illegally Fired for Reporting Legal Issue to In-House Counsel
John "Jack" Yang alleges that Alcentra began retaliating against him by treating him in a hostile manner, giving him an unwarranted negative year-end performance review, and reducing his compensation.
April 23, 2020 at 05:16 PM
4 minute read
A former executive for five years at the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. alleges he was wrongly fired and retaliated against after he reported his supervisor's potentially illegal acts to the bank's in-house counsel.
John "Jack" Yang, former head of the Americas for the bank's Alcentra NY unit, has filed suit in U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York seeking up to $16 million in damages. Alcentra NY, also a defendant, is an investment adviser and subsidiary that shares BNY Mellon's legal, human resources and other services.
BNY Mellon referred questions to an Alcentra spokesman Thursday, who said, "We will not comment on any litigation beyond stating that we think the allegations are baseless and without merit."
Yang's attorney, Manisha Sheth of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, told Corporate Counsel, "Mr. Yang has been treated poorly by defendants here, particularly in light of all his good work at the company. We look forward to his day in court."
Yang's complaint shows his problems began around Aug. 21, 2018, at a meeting of Alcentra's management committee in London. The meeting included Yang, Alcentra co-founder and CEO David Forbes-Nixon, then-chief investment officer Vijay Rajguru, and the company's chief financial officer.
Forbes-Nixon had agreed in 2017 to a five-year collaboration with Stira Adviser, a non-BNY Mellon affiliate, to be a subadviser on a certain interval fund. Yang was placed on the board of trustees of the Stira fund.
Here is what happened next, according to the complaint:
At the 2018 management meeting, Forbes-Nixon and Rajguru criticized the lagging performance of the Stira fund. Forbes-Nixon called the collaboration a "mistake" and said Alcentra should resign as subadviser as soon as possible.
The CFO advised that immediate termination was not possible as Alcentra was obligated under the terms of its subadviser agreement to provide Stira with 90 days' notice of resignation.
But "based on the tone of the meeting and the contents of the discussion, Mr. Yang believed that Mr. Forbes-Nixon and Mr. Rajguru had determined that the relationship with Stira Adviser must end immediately and were unwilling to tolerate any opposition."
Following the meeting, Rajguru emailed Yang and two other executives that "there were to be no more investments, no more meetings, no more updates" provided to Stira.
Yang forwarded the directive to the BNY Mellon in-house counsel whose practice focused on legal issues with mutual and other regulated investment funds, and to the head of U.S. compliance at Alcentra. Sheth declined to give any more details about the in-house counsel, including a name.
Yang's concern was that Alcentra would breach "its legal obligations [under the Investment Company Act of 1940], contractual obligations and fiduciary duties." His reporting to in-house counsel and compliance was done in accordance with BNY Mellon's Code of Conduct and related policies.
Following Yang's report, BNY Mellon counsel contacted Rajguru and advised him that even if Alcentra gave proper notice of resignation, it was still responsible for carrying out its duties as subadviser through at least the summer of 2019.
Forbes-Nixon then asked Stira Adviser to provide certain information, and Stira Adviser asked Yang to review its proposed responses.
Yang's review of the information later became part of Alcentra NY's purported justification for terminating him in January 2019.
The other justification cited was an alleged misuse of personal email for communicating company business.
Meanwhile, Yang alleges that Alcentra, led by Forbes-Nixon, began retaliating against him by treating him in a hostile manner, giving him an unwarranted negative year-end performance review and reducing his compensation.
The complaint alleges illegal retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and seeks an award of base pay and bonuses of at least $4.8 million, deferred compensation of at least $4.2 million and front pay of at least $7 million. It also seeks an unspecified amount for special damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation, plus attorney fees.
Sign up for Law.com's Legal Radar to keep up with the latest news and lawsuits in a free, personalized news feed. Track new federal litigation by industry, practice area, law firm, company and region.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLegal Departments’ Lack of Third-Party Oversight Leaving Small, Midsized Banks Exposed
4 minute readInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
FTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Discover Hires Interim Legal Chief as $35B Sale to Capital One Faces New Hurdles
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Davis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
- 2Construction Fall Nets $2.3 Million Settlement After Trial Begins
- 3By the Numbers: The 2024 LTN Law Firm Tech Survey
- 4Can The Threat of a Bar Complaint Be a Settlement Tool?
- 5Sentencing Commission Addresses Inconsistent Definitions of “Loss”
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250