Employee Share Scheme and the Impact of Garden Leave

The High Court recently considered the impact of the actions of a former employee during garden leave on the terms of his compromise agreement, including his deferred incentive awards.
By: Postlethwaite
 
Jan. 29, 2013 - PRLog -- The High Court recently considered the impact of the actions of a former employee during garden leave on the terms of his compromise agreement, including his deferred incentive awards. The decision provides useful guidance to employers, and could impact on the treatment of employees leaving a company in circumstances where they are participating in an employee share scheme.

In the case of Imam-Sadeque v BlueBay Asset Management (Services) Ltd, the High Court considered a claim by a former employee (who had resigned voluntarily) for satisfaction of a deferred incentive award. The relevant compromise agreement provided that the employee should be treated as a “good leaver” (and should therefore retain the award), as long as he satisfied the obligations contained in his employment contract and the compromise agreement (which extended to the period of his garden leave). However, in subsequently disclosing confidential business information to one of his employer’s competitors and assisting in the recruitment of a former colleague to work for the competitor, the High Court held that the employee was in repudiatory breach of contract and was, therefore, not entitled to the unvested award. While the extent of an employee’s duty of fidelity during the period of garden leave might depend on the facts of each case, the Court found that, on the facts of this case, it was not reduced.

The Court also had to decide a second question. The compromise agreement provided that the employee must fulfil certain obligations in order to keep his “good leaver” status, and therefore avoid losing his deferred incentive award.  Should this provision properly be treated as a “penalty clause”? By way of explanation, a penalty differs from liquidated damages in that it is intended, broadly, to apply unreasonable force to a party who is potentially in breach to perform his obligations, rather than to compensate an innocent party for a breach of contract. A penalty would not be an enforceable term of his contract.

The Court found that the compromise agreement did not provide for the employee’s rights to the award to be forfeited on breach. Under the terms of the deferred incentive award plan, he lost his rights when he resigned from his employment, and it was not argued that this provision was unenforceable as a penalty. The compromise agreement conferred a conditional benefit which did not accrue because he did not satisfy the condition. There could be no penalty issue if the benefit had not yet accrued. Further, a clause can only constitute a penalty if there is no commercial justification for it and the Court was reluctant to find in this case that there was no commercial justification.

There are several key points here for companies operating employee incentive plans.

·         A compromise agreement can usefully provide that an employee should act in the best interests of the employer at all times. The Court found that such a provision was broad enough to cover competitive activities.

·         A compromise agreement can also usefully include an express obligation on the employee to be bound by the terms of his employment during garden leave. This can be an important protection as the extent of the duty of fidelity during garden leave is open to question.

·         The inclusion of a provision in a compromise agreement making the vesting of the award in a long term incentive arrangement (whether a share scheme or a cash-based arrangement) expressly conditional on satisfactory performance of the employee’s obligations is effective to reinforce the terms of the employment contract.

·         The penalty doctrine should not normally be relevant in the case of unvested incentive awards. The position might, however, be different in relation to leaver provisions in articles of association or in stand-alone agreements for the transfer or allotment of shares, because this is more likely to concern rights which have already accrued (that is, shares or share rights that are already owned) .

If you or your clients would like to discuss the impact of this decision please contact:

or call us on 020 7470 8805


info@postlethwaiteco.com

http://www.postlethwaiteco.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note for Editors:

POSTLETHWAITE is a law firm which provides specialist advice on employee share schemes, employee share ownership and majority employee ownership, including EMI share options, approved options, long term incentive plans, Share Incentive Plans (SIPs), ownership by employee trusts and a wide variety of other share schemes.  We look after clients from all parts of the UK, with a particular focus on smaller listed and private companies.  

For further information concerning employee ownership and employee share incentives, please contact Robert Postlethwaite on 020 7470 8805 11-15 Betterton Street London WC2H 9BP

Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, number 385417
End
Source:Postlethwaite
Email:***@postlethwaiteco.com Email Verified
Tags:Employee Share Scheme, Solicitors
Industry:Solicitors
Location:England
Subject:Reports
Account Email Address Verified     Account Phone Number Verified     Disclaimer     Report Abuse
Pancentric News
Trending
Most Viewed
Daily News



Like PRLog?
9K2K1K
Click to Share