SACK, Circuit Judge:
The defendant Francis S. Branin, Jr., a former principal in an investment management firm, and his partners sold their firm and its good will to another investment management firm, the plaintiff Bessemer
When this client and several others stopped doing business with Bessemer to do business with Branin's new firm instead, Bessemer brought the instant lawsuit, alleging that Branin had solicited his former clients at Bessemer in violation of the doctrine established by Von Bremen v. MacMonnies, 200 N.Y. 41, 93 N.E. 186 (1910) and Mohawk Maintenance Co. v. Kessler, 52 N.Y.2d 276, 419 N.E.2d 324, 437 N.Y.S.2d 646 (1981) (the "Mohawk doctrine"), which prohibits, in perpetuity, a voluntary seller of a client's good will from improperly soliciting business from that client after the client's business, including its good will, is transferred to the purchaser. Branin filed counterclaims against Bessemer for breach of contract, in quantum meruit, and for promissory estoppel.
After a bench trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court (John E. Sprizzo, Judge) concluded that Branin had improperly solicited one former client, but found insufficient evidence of improper solicitation with respect to the others. Instead of trying Branin's counterclaims, the court granted Bessemer summary judgment dismissing them. Finally, after a second trial on damages, the court adopted a "return of capital," rather than a "lost profits," theory upon which it awarded Bessemer $1,229,173.20 in damages and pre-judgment interest.
Branin appeals, contesting the finding of liability, the award of damages and the dismissal of his counterclaims. Bessemer cross-appeals with respect to the calculation of damages.
The principal legal question before us depends not on interpretation of contract law, but on application of a branch of New York tort law, the Mohawk doctrine. We find insufficient guidance in New York case law to establish whether Branin's behavior constituted actionable improper solicitation under that law. We therefore certify to the New York Court of Appeals that question. Inasmuch as an answer to this question is dispositive of a finding of liability in this case, and is therefore also a threshold question that must be answered before any damages may be awarded, we need not, and choose not to, decide at this time whether the district court properly calculated damages.
Branin's promissory estoppel and quantum meruit claims have been waived on appeal. We affirm the dismissal of his breach of contract counterclaims because, for reasons we will explain, as an at-will employee, he cannot prevail on them based on diminution of his responsibilities and because his claim for failure to provide an adequate bonus is without merit as his offer letter explicitly vested Bessemer with the sole discretion as to whether to pay him a bonus, and if so, in what amount.
Defendant Francis S. Branin, Jr., an investment portfolio manager, joined the investment management firm of Brundage, Story and Rose, LLC ("Brundage") in 1977, rose to the level of principal in the firm by 1982, served as Chief Executive Officer from 1996 until 2000, and at the time of the events in question, held the largest share of the firm.
In an effort to ensure that the Brundage principals devoted their energies to transferring their client accounts to Bessemer and retaining those accounts, the Purchase Agreement provided that only a portion of the purchase price would be guaranteed— an initial payment of $50 million, of which Branin received more than $9.1 million and that further payments could be earned upon the meeting of certain benchmarks for client retention, revenue enhancements, and reduction of expenses. The Brundage principals thereafter earned two such contingency payments, one for $10 million in September 2001 in return for their meeting client account transfer benchmarks from Brundage to Bessemer, and a payment of approximately $15 million in April 2002 because of a successful reduction of expenses. Branin received nearly one quarter of each of these two payments.
It soon became clear, however, that Branin and the other former Brundage principals would not be eligible for the remaining two contingency payments, in large measure because one of the former principals, Cheryl Grandfield, departed the firm in January 2001. She actively and successfully solicited many of her clients to follow her. That had a serious adverse effect on the ability of the remaining seven principals to meet the final two contingency-payment benchmarks.
Bessemer subsequently brought suit against Grandfield for improper solicitation of clients, alleging the same principal theory of liability that it asserts here. Grandfield settled that lawsuit, agreeing to repay her entire share of the payments she had received from the sale of Brundage.
Branin soon became unsatisfied with his role at Bessemer. Several factors in addition to the fact that he would not be eligible for any further contingency payments appear to have contributed to his dissatisfaction at Bessemer. In contrast to his role at Brundage, where he had actively managed the portfolios of his clients, for example, at Bessemer, Branin was a "client account manager" without the authority to make investment decisions himself. And less than two weeks after the closing of the Brundage transaction, Bessemer's CEO left the firm. His replacement reduced Branin's responsibilities, excluding him from management meetings. Branin understood this effectively to be a demotion.
Branin was also apparently upset by the fact that Bessemer had made minimal effort to introduce him to its new or existing client base and did not involve him in any of the firm's business development projects. Finally, and relevant to Branin's counterclaims in this case, when bonuses were distributed for year-end 2001, Branin received a far smaller bonus as a percentage of his potential target bonus than did the other former Brundage principals.
Branin then engaged a consulting firm to explore moving, with his business, from Bessemer to another firm. The consultants brought Branin to Stein Roe Investment Counsel LLC ("Stein Roe"), a competing investment management firm. For several months, Branin and Stein Roe negotiated toward a possible deal between them. Branin explicitly described for Stein Roe his client base at Bessemer and touted his ability to bring his Bessemer clients with him.
In or prior to June 2002, Branin agreed to move to Stein Roe. At that time, Branin indicated to Stein Roe his hope that within twelve months of joining the firm he would be able to transfer $1.5 to $1.8 million of the approximately $2.3 million in revenue that he was then generating for Bessemer to Stein Roe. He informed Stein Roe that it was possible, however, that few or none of his Bessemer clients would move their business. Prior to his resignation from Bessemer, Branin refrained from contacting any of his Bessemer clients to inform them of his impending move.
On July 12, 2002, Branin resigned from Bessemer. After his resignation, Branin took limited action to assist Bessemer in client retention, providing the firm with a memorandum profiling each of his accounts and the contact person for each account.
At the time Brundage was sold to Bessemer, Branin managed about $450 million in investments, more than ten percent of the approximately $4.1 billion managed by Brundage immediately prior to the sale. Once Branin joined Stein Roe, the company began crafting and implementing a strategy to entice Branin's former Bessemer clients—most or all of whom had come to Bessemer with him from Brundage —to move their business to Stein Roe. This strategy included a new schedule of fee rates to be charged to clients that followed Branin, under which clients' fees would not thereby be increased. He and Stein Roe had some initial success. By the following summer, around thirty of Branin's former clients, representing $205 million in assets, had transferred their accounts from Bessemer to Stein Roe, accounting for all but around $23 million of the assets Branin managed at Stein Roe.
Branin did not contact his clients directly to ask them to follow him to Stein Roe. He did, however, respond to their inquiries when they asked why he left and, if they requested information about the new firm, he sent them material about his new firm. According to the district court's memorandum opinion and order, Branin's "standard" answer to clients who asked why he left Bessemer was that "`a firm like Stein Roe was far more appropriate for me, . . . that the method of dealing with clients, that the approach whereby portfolio managers managed the client portfolios and interacted directly with the clients was more . . . appropriate for my training and experience of 30 years in the business.'" Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin, 427 F.Supp.2d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y.2006)("Bessemer I") (quoting Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, Exh. A to Pre-Trial Order dated August 3, 2004) ("Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts") (ellipses in original). Branin did not say or suggest that Stein Roe's approach would be better or more appropriate for any particular client, nor is there evidence that Branin explicitly disparaged Bessemer.
The evidence introduced at trial established that Branin had individual meetings, either alone or with other Stein Roe employees participating, with representatives of two former clients with accounts at Bessemer: the Palmer family and Glen Raven,
The Palmer family had been a Brundage client since the 1930s. During the fifteen to twenty years Branin had managed the account there, he developed a close friendship with Carleton Palmer, III, who represented the family for these purposes. The two men, along with their wives and children, socialized and vacationed together, and they owned homes in the same community and jointly owned a small fishing boat.
Branin nonetheless did not notify Carleton Palmer or the Palmer family of his move from Bessemer to Stein Roe, nor did he contact them directly after the move. Indeed, the Palmer family first learned of Branin's change of employment through an employee of Bessemer.
Upon learning of Branin's move to Stein Roe, Carleton Palmer called Branin at his home to get his account of the situation— one that, Palmer testified, was very spare. Palmer followed up with a letter requesting specific information as to how the Palmer account might be handled at Stein Roe. Members of the Palmer family then scheduled back-to-back meetings on August 29, 2002, with Stein Roe and Bessemer to discuss the Palmer account.
In anticipation of the meeting and at Branin's instance, Branin and other Stein Roe employees prepared "what he described as a `dog and pony [show]' for a `LARGE client relationship that I am hoping will join [Stein Roe].'" Bessemer I, 427 F.Supp.2d at 391 (quoting Pl.'s Trial Ex. 103, e-mail from Branin to Ronald Fisher and Eric Propper dated August 2, 2002) (first brackets added; block caps in original). On August 22, 2002, Stein Roe held a strategy session organized by Branin during which he provided other Stein Roe employees with information about Carleton Palmer and about the nature of, and investment philosophy for, the Palmer account. According to the trial testimony of Carleton Palmer, during the subsequent meeting between Palmer and Stein Roe, Branin "played almost no role," Trial Tr. at 817, and "pretty much sat over in the corner and kept quiet," id. at 776-77, other than to introduce Carleton Palmer to the firm and "occasionally amplify a point if he knew it was something [the Palmers] would be interested in," id. at 776.
Following the meetings, the Palmer family remained unsure about whether to move their investment accounts to Stein Roe. The Palmers therefore invited Branin to Ohio to make a specific proposal on behalf of that company, an invitation which he accepted. During that visit, Branin informed the Palmer family that they would pay the same fees at Stein Roe that they were then paying at Bessemer, and that the president of Stein Roe would be the "number two" on the family account. Id. at 787, 816. The next day, on September 17, 2002, the Palmer family moved their account to Stein Roe. Carleton Palmer testified that he chose Stein Roe over Bessemer because he was more impressed by Stein Roe's senior management. He also thought that he would be "a much more important client at Stein Roe" because the firm had fewer large clients than Bessemer, making the family account "a big fish in a small pond." Id. at 785.
It was important to Branin that his principal assistant at Bessemer, Alexandra Fuhrmann, join him at Stein Roe. Shortly after Branin informed his staff at Bessemer of his decision to leave the firm, Fuhrmann contacted Stein Roe to seek employment there. Although granted an interview, she was initially told there were
Nevertheless, on August 2, 2002, Fuhrmann was offered a position as a vice president. The president of Stein Roe explained her hiring as a way to make Branin comfortable and to assist in administrative work. However, it was understood that her primary responsibility would be "`to help [Branin] transition as much of his client base to [Stein Roe] as possible,'" id. at 394 (quoting Pl.'s Trial Exs. 68, 89) (alteration in original), and that this was part of the reason that Branin had recommended she join Stein Roe, see Pl's Trial Ex. 69.
Meanwhile, Bessemer, unaware of Fuhrmann's attempts to join Stein Roe, assigned her increasing responsibility in an effort to retain Branin's clients, including promoting her to senior client account manager with respect to several accounts, and informing several customers that she would be assuming day-to-day responsibility for their accounts. According to one of Fuhrmann's supervisors at Bessemer, partner Paul Barkus, when Fuhrmann subsequently left Bessemer to join Stein Roe, on August 2, 2002, her departure made Bessemer "`look[] kind of foolish to the clients.'" Bessemer I, 427 F.Supp.2d at 390 (quoting Trial Tr. at 609). And Barkus told Fuhrmann that he "`thought the only reason that [Branin] and Stein Roe wanted her to go to Stein Roe was to help [Branin] transfer accounts from Bessemer to Stein Roe.'" Id. (quoting Trial Tr. at 594) (alteration in original).
On November 22, 2002, after Fuhrmann and several of Branin's former Bessemer clients had departed the firm, Bessemer filed the complaint in this action in the Supreme Court of New York County. Bessemer asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of Branin's duty of loyalty to Bessemer based on Branin's allegedly improper solicitation of clients and impairment of the good will which Branin had sold to Bessemer in connection with the sale of Brundage. Branin removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on diversity grounds. He then filed counterclaims for breach of contract relating to his position at Bessemer, breach of contract with respect to his bonus, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel based on the sale of Brundage and his associated offer of employment by Bessemer.
After pre-trial discovery was complete, the parties each brought a motion for summary judgment. These were denied. The case proceeded to a bench trial as to Branin's liability on Bessemer's claim. Following the completion of trial, the filing of post-trial memoranda of law, summations by the parties, oral argument, and additional letter briefs, the district court issued a memorandum opinion and order on April 10, 2006, concluding that Branin violated New York law by impairing Bessemer's good will in the Palmer account, but that Bessemer had not proven a violation of law by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to any other transferred account. Bessemer I, 427 F.Supp.2d at 397-98.
Bessemer then moved for summary judgment on Branin's counterclaims. In February 2007, and by a subsequent memorandum opinion and order, the court
The court then conducted a separate bench trial on damages. It rejected Bessemer's "lost profits" theory of damages and accepted Branin's "return of capital" theory, concluding that Branin was liable to Bessemer in the amount of $826,335 plus prejudgment interest of $402,838 for a total of $1,229,173. Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin, 544 F.Supp.2d 385, 390-93 (S.D.N.Y.2008) ("Bessemer III").
Branin appeals as to the district court's finding of liability with respect to the Palmer account, the award of damages, and the grant of summary judgment dismissing his counterclaims. Bessemer cross-appeals as to the district court's calculation of damages.
"In reviewing a district court's decision in a bench trial, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo." White v. White Rose Food, 237 F.3d 174, 178 (2d Cir.2001); accord Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir.2008). "Under the clearly erroneous standard, there is a strong presumption in favor of a trial court's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. We will not upset a factual finding unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." White, 237 F.3d at 178 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Similarly, in reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo, McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 202, 204 (2d Cir.2007), and review a district court's factual findings for clear error, City of N.Y. v. Agni, 522 F.3d 279, 282 (2d Cir.2008). "[C]onstruing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party," Mitchell v. Shane, 350 F.3d 39, 47 (2d Cir.2003), we may affirm only "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "[A] fact is `material' if it `might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.'" Mitchell, 350 F.3d at 47 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). "A fact issue is `genuine' if `the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505).
Finally, with respect to the district court's determination of damages, we review the legal question of the applicable damages measurement de novo. See Indu Craft, Inc. v. Bank of Baroda, 47 F.3d 490, 494 (2d Cir.1995). The question of "the amount of recoverable damages is a question of fact," however, that we review for clear error. Lucente v. IBM Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 261 (2d Cir.2002) (quotation marks omitted).
The Mohawk doctrine, derived from the New York Court of Appeals decisions
Von Bremen, 200 N.Y. at 50-51, 93 N.E. at 189 (quoting Lord MacNaghten's opinion in Trego v. Hunt, (1896) 21 App. Cas. 7).
"[T]he right acquired by the purchaser of the `good will' of a business by virtue of this `implied covenant' [is] a permanent one [and] is not subject to divestiture upon the passage of a reasonable period of time," since there is a continuing duty upon the seller "imposed by law in order to prevent the seller from taking back that which he has purported to sell." Mohawk, 52 N.Y.2d at 284-85, 419 N.E.2d at 329, 437 N.Y.S.2d at 651; accord Borne Chem. Co., Inc. v. Dictrow, 85 A.D.2d 646, 650, 445 N.Y.S.2d 406, 413 (2d Dep't 1981) ("A cause of action for wrongful diversion of good will previously sold to a plaintiff by a defendant sounds in breach of an implied covenant of the contract of sale that the seller will permanently refrain from soliciting his prior customers.").
Mohawk, 52 N.Y.2d at 285, 419 N.E.2d at 329, 437 N.Y.S.2d at 651 (internal citations omitted).
This duty of the seller not to solicit customers does not, however, include an obligation not to accept such of his former customers as may choose to follow him to his new employment. See id., 52 N.Y.2d at 287, 419 N.E.2d at 330, 437 N.Y.S.2d at 652 (recognizing that the seller "may accept the patronage of those customers who were actively dealing with [the purchased company] on the date of the sale if such customers choose to leave [the purchased company] without prompting from [the seller]").
The New York Court of Appeals has drawn an "important distinction between the duty to refrain from soliciting customers" on the one hand, which arises by operation of law upon the sale of good
The difficulty lies, of course, in determining what actions constitute "improper solicitation," an issue upon which New York courts offer somewhat limited guidance. In the case before us, Branin argues that he did not solicit any clients because he was simply responding to their inquiries.
We find no clear error in the district court's finding of fact "that Branin intended to take his clients with him from Bessemer to Stein Roe." Id. at 393. Branin himself stated that he "`had learned . . . the right way to transition clients from
Once at Stein Roe, as noted above, Branin took actions both to help Stein Roe solicit his clients and to frustrate Bessemer's ability to retain them. Most prominently, he called a meeting for the express purpose of devising a strategy to solicit the Palmer family business, requested a new schedule of fees for his former clients so as to entice them to move, held in-depth discussions with employees at Stein Roe in which he described his clients at Bessemer and what would motivate them to move their business to Stein Roe, and participated in both phone and in-person meetings with his former clients during which he discussed his reasons for moving from Bessemer to Stein Roe.
Branin's principal assistant at Bessemer, whose intimate knowledge of Branin's clients would likely have been of significant benefit to Bessemer in its effort to retain Branin's accounts—a fact of which Branin testified he was aware, was hired by Stein Roe despite receiving thoroughly negative reviews during her interviews and without having submitted any references or recommendations, because the president of Stein Roe believed that she could "help [Branin] transition as much of his client base to [Stein Roe] as possible." Id. at 394 (quotation marks and citation omitted, alteration in original). Indeed, this was part of the reason that Branin initially suggested that Stein Roe hire her, and her hiring was important enough to Branin that he offered to pay a portion of her salary at Stein Roe out of his own pocket.
The district court's not-clearly-erroneous finding was that Branin's input helped "Stein Roe's presenters [to] steer[] clear of topics in which Palmer had little interest and focus[] only on those things that were of interest to him." Bessemer I, 427 F.Supp.2d at 396. And Carleton Palmer, the family representative, testified that Branin "occasionally amplif[ied] a point if he knew it was something I would be interested in from his relationship with me." Trial Tr. at 776. Branin then traveled to Ohio for a second meeting with Palmer, in which he presented the Palmer family with a proposed fee schedule and promised the CEO of Stein Roe as the "number two" on the account. Id. at 786-87.
None of this behavior by Branin requires a conclusion under New York law as we understand it, however, that Branin "solicited" Palmer as a client. As the district court correctly noted, other than Palmer and Glen Raven, Bessemer "has offered no proof about which clients spoke to Branin before they transferred their accounts, heard Branin's standard response, were familiar with Fuhrmann, or knew that their fees would be the same at Stein Roe." Bessemer I, 427 F.Supp.2d at 395. Even had "all of the clients at issue [been] party to these actions by defendant, no evidence has been presented to show that these clients would not have joined Branin absent these inducements." Id. And inasmuch as the Palmer family transferred their account only after Stein Roe was able to demonstrate, in a meeting in which Branin took part, that the firm would be a superior investment manager in light of the family's investment needs, we think it relevant that New York law permits several steps Bessemer might have pursued to protect itself in this regard, including non-competition and non-solicitation agreements that could have been, but were not, entered into with the Brundage principals at the time of the sale of the firm to Bessemer.
The district court implicitly recognized what we think to be so: The fact that
The district court found that, "[t]aking all these actions together," it had "no doubt that Branin stepped over the line and improperly induced the Palmers to leave Bessemer and join Stein Roe." Id. at 396. We recognize that these actions are far from passive acceptance of a client's inquiries, but we lack the clarity of conviction of the district court on this point.
The district court found the question of "initiation" irrelevant to its analysis. See id. at 396 n. 10 (finding that "Von Bremen and Mohawk Maintenance Co. place no significance on who initiates the communications between the seller of good will and his now-former clients"). In the court's view, Von Bremen's broader concern was that "it would be bad faith" for the seller "to avail himself as against the [buyer] of any special knowledge or advantage derived by him from the business whose good will he has voluntarily sold." Id. at 396 (quoting Von Bremen, 200 N.Y. at 52, 93 N.E. at 190) (quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
We read the New York case law differently. Inasmuch as Von Bremen relied on bad faith, the reliance on bad faith was not relevant to the solicitation analysis, but was instead part of a separate discussion of the basis for the distinction between voluntary and involuntary sales of good will and for applying the implied covenant in the former case to the exclusion of the latter. See Von Bremen, 200 N.Y. at 51-52, 93 N.E. at 190. And, contrary to the district court's suggestion that "initiation" is of no special significance, the identity of the initiator has been treated as both relevant and important for courts that have applied the implied covenant. They have characterized the forbidden action with words signifying direct initiation of communication, such as "solicit," Von Bremen, 200 N.Y. at 48, 93 N.E. at 188; Mohawk, 52 N.Y.2d at 286, 419 N.E.2d at 329, 437 N.Y.S.2d at 651, "approach[]," Mohawk, 52 N.Y.2d at 284, 419 N.E.2d at 328, 437
We might make the assessments as to whether Branin's efforts in following up on the Palmer family's initiation of contacts constituted improper solicitation. Or, insofar as factual questions as to "initiation" and "causation" are involved, we might return the case to the district court, asking it for a more specific examination of those issues. But we find it difficult for either us or a district court to make that determination in the absence of further explication as to the law of the State of New York as to "improper solicitation" under these circumstances. Especially in light of the importance of New York, and New York law, in the financial services industry, we think, and the New York Court of Appeals may agree, that it is that court which should make this determination in the first instance.
Generalizing, we seek instruction as to whether two sets of actions, taken together, amount to "improper solicitation" under the law of the Mohawk doctrine: (1) the active development and participation by the seller, in response to inquiries from a former client whose good will the seller has voluntarily sold to a third party, of a plan whereby others at the seller's new company solicit a client, and (2) participation by the seller in solicitation meetings where the seller's role is largely passive.
Following a two-day trial on damages, the district court rejected Bessemer's "lost profits" theory of damages and accepted Branin's "return of capital" theory, concluding that Branin was liable to Bessemer on the breach of contract claim in the amount of $1,229,173: $826,335 damages and $402,838 prejudgment interest. Bessemer III, 544 F.Supp.2d at 393. Both parties challenge this finding. Branin argues that there should be no damage award because Bessemer did not prove a causal link between the breach and Bessemer's injury. Bessemer argues that the district court erred in accepting Branin's "return of capital" theory rather than its own "lost profits" theory.
Since we are certifying the threshold question of whether Branin is liable to Bessemer for improper solicitation, we need not reach the question of how Bessemer's damages should be calculated, and thus reserve judgment on that issue. However, we do consider Branin's argument
We reserve decision on the correct method for the calculation of damages until we receive further guidance from the New York Court of Appeals on liability, and, if it wishes, on damages, should the court choose to accept the question that we certify.
Branin asserted four counterclaims in the district court: breach of contract with respect to his position at Bessemer, breach of contract as to his bonus, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel based on the sale of the business and his offer of employment by Bessemer. On appeal, Branin alleges error only with respect to the district court's grant of summary judgment on his breach of contract claims. The quantum meruit and promissory estoppel arguments are therefore waived. See Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998). And we find no error in the district court's rejection of Branin's remaining breach of contract claims.
Exhibit D to the Purchase Agreement sets out the criteria by which Branin's cash bonus was to be determined. Specifically, that exhibit provides that while Branin is "eligible for participation in the Incentive Cash Bonus Plan[, t]he amount of the bonus is at the discretion of the Salary Committee, and at this time has a range of 0% to 250% of base pay." Purchase Agreement, Ex. D, at 1.
Branin alleges that at the end of 2001, the other former Brundage principals received bonuses amounting to between ninety-two and more than one-hundred percent of the maximum bonuses provided for in Exhibit D to the Purchase Agreement. He asserts that he received instead only twenty percent of his potential bonus (slightly more than fifty percent of his base salary). He alleges that this constitutes a breach of Exhibit D. The district court rejected this claim on the ground that the same agreement expressly "allows for a discretionary bonus range between 0% and 250% of his salary," Bessemer II, 498 F.Supp.2d at 638, and Branin's bonus, at more than fifty percent of his salary, "was within this range," id.
Branin concedes that under New York law "the insertion of the word discretion into a bonus arrangement signals the end to any possible challenge to a bonus determination," Appellant's Br. at 60, but argues that the allowance for discretion does not settle the matter here. He asserts that the Purchase Agreement included a
In Valentine v. Carlisle Leasing Int'l Co., No. 97 Civ. 1406, 1998 WL 690877, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15581 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 1998), on which Branin relies as support for his argument, the court reached precisely the opposite result from that which Branin seeks here. The court considered an offer letter that "clearly stated" that the employer "would retain absolute discretion to determine both whether [the plaintiff] would receive a bonus and, if so, how much he would receive." Id., 1998 WL 690877, at *4, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15581, at *11. In light of this explicitly conferred discretion, the court held that the plaintiff had no right to have the bonus terms enforced. Id.
To be sure, in reaching this conclusion, the Valentine court noted in dicta that the employee's letter conferring employment "indicated only generally that [the employee's] entitlement to a bonus would depend on his performance and that of the company but did not set forth objective criteria on which [the employer] would base its decision." Id. Branin attempts to seize on this language in Valentine to argue that where, as here, objective criteria are present, the failure to provide a bonus that meets those criteria is actionable despite the fact that discretion to provide a bonus was explicitly reserved by the employer. But, Valentine does not stand for the proposition offered. The dicta relied on by Branin did nothing more than explain the many ways in which the employer reserved discretion for itself.
Exhibit D to the Purchase Agreement that Branin seeks to enforce here expressly states that its terms "do not and are not intended to create either an expressed or implied employment contract." Purchase Agreement, Ex. D at 2. Exhibit D expressly states that any bonus to be awarded is "at the discretion of the Salary Committee." Id. We find no error in the district court's reading of these clauses as dispositive of Branin's claim: They reserve to the Salary Committee the decision to award or not to award a bonus, and in what amount.
The Purchase Agreement required that Branin be given a position at Bessemer "generally comparable" to his former position at Brundage. Purchase Agreement, § 7.01(vii). The parties agreed upon what that position would be, the title of Managing Director, the base salary and bonus range, the terms of vacation time, and the form and scope of other benefits. Branin does not dispute that he received all that was agreed upon in this respect. Branin nonetheless continued to argue to the district court, and continues to argue here, that he suffered "diminished responsibilities, exclusion from meetings, and effective demotion throughout his time at Bessemer." Bessemer II, 498 F.Supp.2d at 635. Because of these alleged diminished responsibilities, Branin maintains that "questions of fact exist as to whether there was a material diminution in Mr. Branin's duties and responsibilities subsequent to the closing." Appellant's Br. at 63.
The district court rejected this argument, concluding that even had Branin suffered the demotion and other grievances he alleges, Bessemer would not have breached any term of the Purchase Agreement or offer letter by doing so. Bessemer II, 498 F.Supp.2d at 635-36. We agree.
Branin characterizes the Purchase Agreement's requirement that he be provided with a role that was "generally comparable" to the role he had at Brundage as "a commitment that so long as Mr. Branin remained in Bessemer's employ, he would
Under the rules of this Circuit, "[i]f state law permits, the court may certify a question of state law to that state's highest court." 2d Cir. R. 27.2(a); see also Prats v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 315 F.3d 146, 150-51 (2d Cir.2002). Certification is within the discretion of this Court. See McCarthy v. Olin Corp., 119 F.3d 148, 153 (2d Cir.1997).
In the past, we have recognized several factors that guide our decision of whether to certify a question to the New York Court of Appeals. First, and most important, we have recognized that certification may be appropriate if the New York Court of Appeals has not squarely addressed an issue and other decisions by New York courts are insufficient to predict how the Court of Appeals would resolve it. See Kuhne v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 579 F.3d 189, 198 (2d Cir.2009); O'Mara v. Town of Wappinger, 485 F.3d 693, 698 (2d Cir.2007). We find insufficient guidance in past New York cases regarding the application of the Mohawk doctrine to determine how it would be applied to the facts of this case. And, as we have noted, we think that because of the prominence of the financial services industry in the State of New York, clarification of New York law on the issues presented in this case would be of significant public interest.
Second, certification may be appropriate where resolution of an issue involves value judgments and public policy choices that the New York Court of Appeals is best situated to make. See Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214, 229 (2d Cir.2006); Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 344 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir.2003). We think that the New York Court of Appeals is better positioned to determined the scope of permissible solicitation under New York law of former clients by voluntary sellers of those clients' good will.
Finally, we have found certification appropriate where the question certified will determine the outcome of the case. See O'Mara, 485 F.3d at 698 (analyzing earlier version of the Second Circuit local rule governing certification). Here, resolution of the question of the scope of the Mohawk doctrine will determine our resolution of the question of liability and therefore control the outcome of this appeal of the district court's decision.
Because each of these factors suggests that certification is appropriate, we hereby certify the question restated below.
For the foregoing reasons, we certify the following question to the New York
Pursuant to New York Court of Appeals Rule 500.17 and United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Rule 27.2, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transmit to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York this opinion as our certificate, together with a complete set of the briefs, appendix, and record filed in this Court by the parties. We direct the parties to bear equally any fees and costs that may be imposed by the New York Court of Appeals in connection with this certification. This panel will retain jurisdiction of the appeal after disposition of this certification by the New York Court of Appeals, and after the Court of Appeals' judgment should it choose to accept this certification.
