Summary List Placement
A former PwC tax partner who claimed he was pushed out of the firm after he was wrongfully deprived of credit for bringing in a major client has had his lawsuit moved to arbitration.
John Cahill, whose lawsuit against PwC revealed details about how the firm evaluates and compensates its partners, sued the firm in Minnesota last month. But PwC asked a New York court to halt the case, saying Cahill had ignored his agreement to arbitrate, and the Big Four advisory giant won the decision it was seeking on Tuesday.
“The court’s going to grant the petition,” Justice O. Peter Sherwood said on an oral argument held via Skype on Tuesday.
Cahill, who goes by Jack, said in court papers filed last month that PwC recruited him to join in 2016 from Pine River Capital Management, an asset manager where he’d been a managing director and head of tax, his LinkedIn profile said. He said he planned to work there until 60, which is PwC’s mandatory retirement age.
His lawsuit provided a rare look behind the curtain at the politics and pay of a Big Four firm. Cahill said he was given goals for the revenue he had to bring in as a “lead tax partner” and as “engagement partner” that would increase for his first three years. He said he secured his performance by bringing in a client, which he didn’t name, that came to do $10 million in business a year with PwC.
But Cahill claimed he was forced to share credit for that client and was ultimately forced off the engagement.
“PwC excluded Cahill from decision-making, strategy, meetings and conversations about Client A,” Cahill wrote in his lawsuit, referring to the big client. “Cahill’s only avenue to obtain information was directly from Client A and others at PwC.”
Cahill suffered a partial defeat earlier this month when a Minnesota judge put his case on pause and allowed PwC to press forward with its claim that Cahill should be forced to arbitrate. Cahill claimed that he was tricked into signing the firm’s partnership agreement, or that his signature was invalid. But Justice Sherwood said New York law was on PwC’s side.
“We are pleased with the court’s decision to compel arbitration per the terms of the partnership agreement,” PwC said in a statement. “As we have stated from the outset, Mr. Cahill’s claims have absolutely no merit. In accordance with the terms of its partnership agreement, PwC required Mr. Cahill to withdraw from the partnership based on his failure to meet the firm’s performance expectations.”
PwC is represented by Winston & Strawn and Cahill is represented by Zeichner Ellman & Krause and Messerli Kramer. Lawyers for Cahill didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Animation shows how long it takes for trash to break down
Source:: Business Insider