Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on April 7, 2009June 27, 2018

How Clients and Staffing Companies Can Benefit From Unconventional Candidates

Staffing companies follow a number of models in providing personnel to clients.


Typically, they are focused on conventional full-time positions, even when the work is project-based rather than recruit-to-hire. That’s because most clients want it that way.


They’re often not comfortable with the notion of flexible employment among their own core staffers. So why would they accept it from their staffing providers?


Mom Corps, Your Encore and Flexperience Consulting are niche staffing providers. Each is a case study of how clients can benefit if they’ll accept flexibility in their contingent employees. Staffing companies that offer their talent hours and schedules beyond the typical corporate workday discover an untapped pool of extraordinary talent longing to put their skills to work, as long as they can do it on their own terms. Clients can benefit from this talent, if they’re open to trying it out.


The Boomer Group doesn’t look for flexible assignments. Instead, it offers clients maturity and the benefits of, to put it bluntly, age. As the name suggests, the company’s candidates are mostly boomers, and the Boomer Group’s selling point is its talent’s strong work ethic, professional expertise and life experience.


College Helpers isn’t a staffing company, but its business model is unusual enough that we included it here, especially since many staffing companies use this job board. College Helpers is focused entirely on matching employers who want college students for part-time, temporary and seasonal jobs with those students at more than 1,000 institutions across the country.


This company, just like the other four, is an example of how to take profitable advantage of a business niche that no one else sees and make it a win for everyone involved.


Working moms want time for families
Clients of Atlanta-headquartered Mom Corps don’t care that 94 percent of the company’s 25,000-candidate database is made up of moms who left conventional corporate work to spend more time with their children.


“Clients are only interested in the right talent,” says Allison O’Kelly, CEO and founder of the company. “That’s what we pitch—expertise, qualifications, skills and experience.”


Mom Corps’ staffing specialties include finance and accounting, human resources, sales, marketing, information technology, and some legal work and strategic consulting. The company’s more than 200 clients range from sole proprietorships to large companies such as GE, Wachovia and KPMG.


Clients like other parts of O’Kelly’s sales pitch too. They’re happy to learn that Mom Corps candidates won’t need training, other than on clients’ specific IT systems, and they’re intrigued to learn that “flexibility is currency,” as O’Kelly says.


“If employers offer more flexibility, candidates will view this as one form of payment. So clients might be able to pay less money for higher talent, or they can access candidates who would not otherwise consider the position.”


Mom Corps didn’t lack for clients even before incorporating in July 2005. The company has since opened offices in Boston; Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago; the New York metropolitan area; and Washington.


“Clients find us through word-of-mouth or by looking for internal business development people,” O’Kelly says. In addition, media coverage about the company’s business model drives clients to Mom Corps.


O’Kelly’s own desire for work flexibility was the genesis for Mom Corps. After leaving Toys ‘R’ Us in 2004, she used her financial and accounting expertise to land consulting projects with small businesses.


“I saw that companies had a need for talent, and I had offers for more work than I could do,” she says. She started matching up her stay-at-home-mom friends who also had accounting backgrounds with companies that needed help. That informal process became Mom Corps.


For staffing companies that want to emulate Mom Corps’ successful focus on flexible work arrangements, O’Kelly says, “The key is finding the right fit for the client. This should be one additional option to meet the client’s needs.”


Science and engineering experts mean more business
In a global economy where innovation is crucial to business, and engineering and technical personnel are in short supply, Your Encore’s success is hardly surprising. The company helps meet the technical personnel needs of a select group of clients through a database of 4,000 vetted, background-checked and highly qualified engineers and scientists. Of those 4,000 individuals, 90 to 95 percent are retired, while the rest are seeking alternative careers.


“We not only connect companies with retired engineers and scientists,” says founder and CEO Brad Lawson, “but we help them do it confidentially so IT and people are protected.”


Your Encore also manages all compliance issues such as co-employment and pension and payment conflicts with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.


Founded in 2003, the company struggled to prove itself for a couple of years, but then took off like a rocket in 2005. Lawson describes Your Encore as “an innovation acceleration services company.”


Although Your Encore experts are paid well, clients can use them much more cost-effectively than “for a fully burdened employee, because they can turn them on and off,” Lawson says.


And for clients skeptical of using retirees, Lawson says, “Retirees really involve themselves in the task at hand. They focus on it totally. They deliver more fully than full-time employees.”


These experts aren’t trying to bag their next consulting job, either. “They leave that to Your Encore,” Lawson says.

The company has a unique, or at least an unusual, marketing approach: none whatsoever. Your Encore does a small amount of external business development, but doesn’t need to.


“We are growing so fast we have to be careful about adding new clients,” Lawson says. “We want to make sure we can support them.”


Its 30 Fortune 500 clients come from the company’s origins.


“The idea came from Procter & Gamble and their ‘Connect and Develop’ strategy of looking externally for solutions to problems,” Lawson says. “As they saw their experts retire, they figured other companies were having the same problems.”


Lawson, John Bernard, P&G, Eli Lilly and Boeing partnered to found Your Encore. To date, the company’s experts have participated in more than 1,000 projects.


Just college students, please
Employers with part-time, temporary or seasonal positions can use general job boards or perhaps staffing companies, but if they specifically want to seek out college students, they’ve historically had little choice but to contact one institution at a time.


In 2000/2001, Fred Grant changed that when he launched CollegeHelpers.com. It’s a specialty job board where employers can simultaneously look for college students at up to 1,100 (and growing) institutions, and students can simultaneously look for jobs in multiple locations.


In 2007, Grant estimates 1,500 to 2,000 employers used the site.


“For a flat fee, an employer can list a job at as many colleges as they want,” he says. “It provides employers with economy of scale, and also means students have access to more jobs.”


Grant can offer economy of scale to employers because of his arrangement with participating colleges and universities. Colleges are typically inundated with job listings and often can’t manage the process. Whether institutions ask Grant to manage the entire job-listing process, provide CollegeHelpers.com as a resource to students or just want the listings, they pay no fees.


Instead, the institutions earn money. They provide a link to CollegeHelpers.com from their own Web sites, and when an employer goes to CollegeHelpers.com via the link, 10 percent of the employer’s posting fee goes to the college. Grant pays these affiliate earnings annually.


“Revenue ranges from $100 to $3,000,” he says.


Grant has a two-tier pricing system for position listings: one for for-profits and one for nonprofits and families.


“There are large corporations that use CollegeHelpers.com,” he says, “but there is no way to tell who they are. So I keep the prices low.”


Although employers provide the revenue, Grant markets mainly to students via online destinations such as Facebook, college sites and Google keywords and phrases such as “jobs for college students.”


“Employers respond to the speed with which jobs are filled,” he says.


For his next project, Grant plans to launch HighSchoolHelpers.com. Employers will pay to post jobs, and school districts will participate as affiliates. “It will grow even faster than CollegeHelpers.com,” Grant says.


Focused on flexibility
When Sally Thornton was pregnant with her first baby, her brother died. “My mother told me then that I needed to spend as much time with my child as possible,” Thornton says. That was the moment when San Francisco/Silicon Valley-based Flexperience Consulting was conceived.


Despite her “Aha!” moment, Thornton couldn’t act immediately. The HR specialist, who had worked first in HR consulting for Ernst & Young and then at Covad Communications, had to save up. After her second baby, “Covad went through a transition, and I took the severance package to get the money,” she says.


Founded in October 2006, Flexperience Consulting’s business model is based on providing her 30 clients, including about 20 Fortune 500 companies, with “highly skilled, top-level employees who’ve never signed up with agencies before,” Thornton says.


Her database of 3,000 candidates “have Harvard and Stanford MBAs, and they are focused on flexibility. It’s a win-win situation because companies have access to talent they’ve never seen.”


Thornton defines flexibility as anything that’s less than 40 hours a week with some telecommuting.


“That’s the sweet spot,” she says. Most projects take 10 to 30 hours a week including some telecommuting. “[The talent] doesn’t want to be there during traditional hours. They want to be results-focused, not face-time-focused.”


Despite this, Thornton says her talent will sometimes accept jobs requiring 40 hours per week in an office. “They are used to working 80 hours per week with lots of politics, so this is ‘flexible’ for them,” she says. “They don’t want to work those crazy Silicon Valley hours.”


The company’s marketing is based on networking. “In the Bay Area, everyone knows everybody,” she says. “[We have] people who went to Stanford, Berkeley, worked for high-technology companies and were in moms’ clubs. It’s a small community.”


Flexperience stages well-attended events at the University of California-Berkeley, Stanford and the 1,000-member moms’ clubs. “So people hear about us several times before hiring us,” Thornton says.


For other staffing companies that would like to offer candidates that desired flexibility, Thornton says, “Change the paradigm of face time to results. Logistics should always be second to the work product. Also, really screen for talent that will thrive in a flexible work environment, [such as] a professional’s ability to self-motivate and manage his/her energy without needing a traditional work environment.”


Experience counts
In 2002, times were tough in the staffing industry, and no one knew that better than Stephanie Klein. At the time, she was working for a large staffing company in Denver, which had been hard-hit by declines in its telecom, finance and call-center businesses.


“I had a large financial services company client that was growing,” Klein says. “I’d come to work and get all these voice mails from young candidates who had no work ethic—and weren’t coming in to work.”


Then Klein encountered a mature candidate with a nontraditional background who was strong in accounting. “I placed this woman with the company,” she says. The woman showed up at work every day, had great ideas and sent Klein a thank-you note.


“That was the secret,” Klein says. “As those young people left, unknown to my employer, I backfilled [their positions] with mature people.”


While that was happening, Klein researched boomers. She developed a business plan, used her savings and got a bank loan, and the Boomer Group was born, opening for business in January 2004.


Most of the positions the Boomer Group fills are midlevel or senior level, because clients are paying for experience—both life and business experience.


“I get two kinds of calls,” Klein says. ” ‘Bring me something specific with this kind of background in this area,’ or ‘Bring me someone with good experience and a good work ethic who can be diplomatic and handle our customers.’ ”


She provides candidates with backgrounds in administration, finance and accounting, HR and marketing.


Klein finds clients through networking and cold and warm calling. The company has also gotten a lot of positive press, and that has brought clients in as well.


“Denver has the highest number of boomers per capita,” Klein says. “There are a lot of initiatives on encore careers. I’ve gotten involved in those, and I make a lot of connections that way.”


At just 40 years old, Klein isn’t a boomer.


“I’m a younger person who values experienced people,” she says. “When I first started, I had the intention of saying that mature people are better workers than younger ones. Now, we don’t say that all young people have a poor work ethic; we say that for certain key positions, experience counts. This is our difference.”

Posted on April 6, 2009June 27, 2018

Merrill Settles 401(k) Class Action for $75 Million

Participants in the 401(k) plan at Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. have reached a $75 million preliminary settlement with the brokerage firm to cover losses sustained in their retirement plans over the last several years.


Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll of Washington, along with Keller Rohrback of Seattle, announced the proposed settlement Monday, April 6.


Marc Machiz, an attorney with Cohen Milstein, who is representing Merrill workers in the class action, added that a federal court will hold a hearing at the end of July to determine if the payment will be approved.


He said that the class notice will be going out this week to Merrill workers who participated in the company’s 401(k), retirement accumulation plan, or stock ownership plan between September 30, 2006, and December 31, 2008.


During that time, the value of Merrill’s stock declined by more than 80 percent.


The class action was initiated by participants in November 2007 to recoup some of the losses they incurred for investing a portion of their retirement savings in Merrill stock.

The suit alleged that the company should have known that its stock was an imprudent investment option for its plan participants.


A Merrill spokesperson could not be reached for comment.


Filed by Crain’s New York Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.

Posted on April 6, 2009August 3, 2023

GM Says 600 UAW Workers Have Changed Their Minds on Buyout

General Motors said Friday, April 3, that about 600 hourly workers who tentatively accepted a special attrition retirement or buy-out package last month have changed their minds.


About 7,600 workers initially accepted the offers, said Tom Wilkinson, GM spokesman. Many of them had until March 31 to reconsider, he said. Most of the remaining 7,000 workers left the company by April 1, GM said.


GM was pleased with the initial number who had accepted. In a progress report to the U.S. Treasury, GM said the 7,600 acceptances were 1,000 more than anticipated. But even with 600 reconsidering, the results are still good, Wilkinson said.


“This was always envisioned as an important step toward where we need to get,” Wilkinson says. “These are 7,600 individual decisions and individual people and individual families. We’re not disappointed. It just is what it is.”


At a press conference Monday, April 6, GM’s new CEO, Fritz Henderson, hinted that there might be more special attrition programs in the future. That’s because President Barack Obama gave GM 60 days to restructure the company or face possible bankruptcy. To achieve that kind of restructuring, Henderson said, GM will have to cut deeper.


Henderson hinted there might also be more factory closures. In its February 17 viability plan submitted to the U.S. Treasury, GM proposed closing 14 manufacturing facilities in the U.S. by 2012. That’s five more than it included in its December plan given to the government. Henderson said he expects that number could rise.


Filed by Jamie LaReau of Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


 

Posted on April 6, 2009June 27, 2018

Execs Financial Planning Perks Are on the Chopping Block

As bailed-out financial institutions take more heat over the massive pay packages dished out to their executives, a key fringe benefit usually awarded to top officers—the financial planning perk—appears to be on the chopping block.

Every element of executives’ pay is being carefully scrutinized by lawmakers, shareholders and taxpayers. As a result, several of the nation’s largest financial institutions have already stopped footing the bill for their executives’ financial planning, which historically has been a staple of compensation packages for CEOs, CFOs and other top brass.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Wells Fargo & Co. and SunTrust Banks, for example, have elected to stop subsidizing the use of financial planners for their top executives, according to an analysis of some of the first 2009 proxy filings conducted by Investment News, a sister publication of Workforce Management.

While it’s still early in the proxy season, observers suggest that these banks’ actions could foreshadow a larger move away from providing executives with financial advisors.

“It’s hardly a surprise, and I’d be shocked if more companies didn’t follow their lead,” says Pearl Meyer, a senior managing director at New York-based compensation consulting firm Steven Hall & Partners. “Any perk that doesn’t have a clear business rationale is under the microscope at the moment.”

While free financial planning is hardly as lavish—or as costly—as perks such as corporate-jet access or chauffeur-driven cars, it can add up to as much as $20,000 a year per executive.

In fact, CEOs at Fortune 100 companies collectively received just under $1 million in financial planning perks in 2007, according to data that compensation research firm Equilar of Redwood Shores, California, culled from 2008 proxy filings for Investment News.

This could be a business opportunity for advisors, industry observers say.

It’s conceivable that millions of dollars in financial planning services could be in play over the coming year since hundreds of large and midsize companies typically award the perk to several of their top executives.

“It’s a gradually melting ice cube,” says George Paulin, Los Angeles-based chairman and chief executive of Frederic W. Cook & Co., a New York-based compensation consulting firm to a number of financial institutions.

Paulin and other pay experts say that companies have viewed the perk as a critical business expense for several reasons.

For one, financial planners can make sure that executives are paying their personal income taxes accurately and on a timely basis.

“If a CEO doesn’t pay his taxes, a company’s reputation could be at risk,” says Charles Tharp, executive vice president for policy at the Center on Executive Compensation in Washington.

Also, financial planners often help executives buy and sell their personal company stock holdings, a role that helps to alleviate some potential conflicts of interest in the boardroom.

“There’s a seemingly independent third party advising an executive on their insider transactions,” says Ira Kay, director of the compensation practice at Arlington, Virginia-based consulting firm Watson Wyatt. “Companies have seen that there’s a real business value in paying for that additional layer.”

While that benefit probably still exists, its value now may be viewed as a tougher sell within the hypersensitive political environment.

“The ‘natural’ executive compensation plan is now being totally redefined,” says Marylin Prince, founder of New York-based executive search firm PrinceGoldsmith. “Everything is being re-evaluated.”

To that end, Bank of New York Mellon noted in its proxy filing in March that it will be shedding the financial planning perk—along with personal cars, parking and club membership dues—for its executives in 2009 and will “retain [only] perquisites that are important for the conduct of business and for security reasons.”

As an aside, personal use of Bank of New York Mellon’s aircraft will still be included in executives’ perks, along with cars and drivers and executive life insurance, according to the proxy.

At the same time, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which historically has offered its executives limited perks as part of their compensation deals, specifically noted in its proxy that it will “phase out as soon as practicable in 2009 a financial planning benefit to executive officers.”

Atlanta-based SunTrust, meanwhile, made it a point to specify in its proxy filing last month that the company moved to eliminate any club membership, home security and financial planning perks for its executives at the beginning of 2008.

Each of these three financial institutions has received bailout funds from the Department of the Treasury, which subjects the companies to certain restrictions on executive compensation.

Lawmakers, however, did not require any recipients of federal funds to limit or eliminate perks paid to top executives, says David Schmidt, a senior consultant at James F. Reda & Associates, a New York-based compensation consulting firm.

“So this is something these companies must see as an appropriate gesture at the very least,” he says.

Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, declined to comment on the perk beyond what was mentioned in the proxy, as did Melissa Murray, a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo. Mike McCoy, spokesman for SunTrust, did not return a call seeking comment.

Posted on April 5, 2009June 27, 2018

The Challenge of Communicating 401(k) Cuts

In January, Fran Ruderman, senior director of benefits and compensation at Leviton Manufacturing, was in a position that many benefits managers are finding themselves in these days.

After a series of discussions among top-level executives, the Little Neck, New York-based manufacturer of electronic products decided to suspend its 401(k) match, effective March 1. And it was up to Ruderman to make sure the company’s 3,600 employees understood why it was taking the action.

“This was a really difficult decision,” Ruderman says.

Leviton isn’t alone in its decision. A February survey by Hewitt Associates found that 2 percent of employers have cut or temporarily suspended their 401(k) match, while another 5 percent expect to do so in 2009. Up to 10 percent of companies could cut or suspend their 401(k) match in the next 12 to 18 months if markets continue to deteriorate, according to Hewitt.

For HR and benefits managers at these companies, delivering this message can prove to be challenging, experts say. While companies want to make sure they give employees all of the accurate legal information they need about the change, they also want to address workers with compassion, says Suzanne Samuelson, a principal at Mercer.

“At some point things are going to turn around, and when that happens you want employees to feel connected to you,” she says. “The better you communicate with them, the more likely they will stay with you in good and bad times.”


From the top
While dealing with a 401(k) match cut is the domain of benefits managers, experts agree that the announcement about such cuts or reductions should come from the top leadership of the company.

“This is not the time for leadership to sit under the desk,” says Nanette Kress, senior vice president and communications practice leader at the Segal Co., a New York-based consultant. “When changes like this are taking place, it’s important to make sure that people aren’t being left in the dark.”

After Leviton’s executives made the decision to cut the 401(k) match, CEO Donald J. Hendler took it upon himself to inform employees.

“Our CEO felt it imperative that communications come from him,” Ruderman says.

In late January, Hendler, Ruderman and other senior executives at Leviton put together the letter informing 401(k) participants that the match would be suspended as of March 1. “We said that once business conditions improved, it is our intent to reinstate matching contributions,” Ruderman says. Leviton had offered a match of 100 percent on the first 3 percent contributed by employees and 50 percent on the next 2 percent.

A couple days before the letter was e-mailed out to participants, however, Ruderman sent it out to managers and to the company’s 13 HR representatives to make sure that they would be prepared to answer questions and address employees’ concerns. “I followed up with them to let everyone know that if they needed any assistance or help answering questions to come to me or someone else in the corporate office,” she says.

Making sure that managers and HR are prepared for a change like this is essential to communicating effectively with employees, experts say.

“The last thing you want is an employee asking a manager about their reaction to this kind of move and the manager saying, ‘How the heck do I know?’ ” Samuelson says. “Managers aren’t there as cheerleaders for making the change, but they can be a support network about why such a change needs to be made.”

Managers also can be helpful in explaining the business case behind the decision, which is crucial, experts say. Obviously most employees know that the economy is in a recession, Samuelson says. “But employees need to understand that this isn’t simply a way to save money,” she says. “It’s about being able to ensure the viability of the business.”

If companies are doing this to avoid layoffs, they need to say that, experts say.

When communicating a cut or a reduction in the 401(k) match, employers are required to send out legal information explaining the change. This can be a big stumbling block for companies because legal language is often difficult for employees to understand, experts say.

Ruderman found this to be a particular issue with Leviton employees. After the company sent out the initial e-mail about the 401(k) match suspension, things seemed fine in terms of employee reaction, she says.

“Our employees understand our nation’s economic condition and have acknowledged that many companies have suspended 401(k) matching contributions,” she says. “Employees weren’t happy to see the match suspended, but morale was still high.”

But two days later, after the company e-mailed a legal notification called a “Summary of Material Modification,” Ruderman heard from a number of distressed colleagues.

“I had several employees, including the in-house attorney, contact me and say, ‘I’m just stopping my participation in the 401(k). I don’t get it,’ ” Ruderman told attendees of the Pensions & Investments Defined Contribution Conference, in Miami Beach, Florida, in February. Specifically, employees were confused by the language of the document, which was e-mailed without accompanying explanation.

To address employees’ confusion, Ruderman contacted Leviton’s 401(k) plan provider, Bank of America, for help. “We came up with a series of communications campaigns,” she says, noting that the company has launched Web-based modules and lunch discussions to talk about the change and the importance of saving for retirement.

The mistake that Leviton and many other employers make is sending out legal information without an explanation, Mercer’s Samuelson says. “You should never send out any of the legal notices without a cover letter explaining the context of the situation,” she says.

Ruderman agrees that if she could do anything over again it would be to send out the legal notice with an explanatory note.

Ruderman says she is now continuing to focus on communicating to employees the importance of retirement savings in these difficult economic times.

“I think over-communicating might be better than under-communicating right now,” she says

Posted on April 3, 2009June 27, 2018

House OKs Tougher Bonus Restrictions

The House of Representatives has approved a bill that would repeal a provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that exempted certain bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money from tough executive pay regulations.


The measure, which the House approved Wednesday, April 1, on a 247-171 vote, would affect the payment of retention bonuses such as those paid to some employees of American International Group Inc.’s Financial Products Corp. unit.


The ARRA contained a provision that exempted bonuses that had been promised in employment contracts signed on or before February 11 of this year. The House action voids that provision.


The measure, H.R. 1664, would prohibit a company receiving money from the government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program and some other programs from paying any executive or employee any compensation that is “unreasonable or excessive,” as defined in standards established by the Treasury secretary, and from paying any bonus or other supplemental payment that is not directly based on performance-based standards set by the secretary.


“Given the legislative process and the administration’s desire to get this bill done before the recess to speed funds into the economy, Congress made a mistake,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, said in a statement. “We have, fortunately, a process for correcting mistakes, which is subsequent legislation. We have now acted very promptly, and if this bill becomes law then the mistake will have had no effect.” The measure now goes to the Senate for its approval.


Filed by Mark A. Hofmann of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Posted on April 3, 2009June 27, 2018

South Carolina Can Use Stimulus Cash for Pension Fund

The Obama administration has given South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford permission to use a portion of the state’s expected $2.8 billion in federal stimulus money to help reduce the liabilities of the $27 billion South Carolina Retirement System, according to Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s spokesman.


The administration had rejected Gov. Sanford’s original request to use the stimulus money to pay down state debt, including debt related to retirees.


He wrote a letter to President Obama on March 18 asking for the administration to reconsider allowing the state to use a portion of the $2.8 billion—the first payment of which is expected to be $740 million—to reduce pension liabilities.


Sanford will accept the stimulus funds as long as the state assembly uses equal amounts of the money received for programs and to pay down debt, Sawyer said, but the governor has not yet announced whether he has formally accepted them yet.



Filed by John D’Antona Jr. of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter

Posted on April 3, 2009June 27, 2018

California County Pension Plan Sues JPMorgan Chase

Imperial County Employees’ Retirement System, El Centro, California, has filed a lawsuit against the $488 million plan’s custodian, JPMorgan Chase Bank, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and breach of contract.


The suit, filed on March 27 in U.S. District Court in New York, alleges that JPMorgan Chase incurred losses in the securities lending cash collateral pools it managed for the plan through an investment in medium-term notes issues by Sigma Finance despite “unmistakable—yet unheeded—warnings concerning Sigma.”


The suit also noted that JPMorgan “earned substantial fees and interest through providing short-term repurchase agreements financing for Sigma,” according to court filings.


The suit seeks recovery of unspecified losses as well as restoration of profits that JPMorgan Chase gained through its financing agreement with Sigma. The plan also is seeking class-action status.


David H. Prince, Imperial County retirement administrator, did not return a call seeking comment on the plan’s lawsuit.


John Johnman, a JPMorgan Chase Bank spokesman, said the firm “cannot comment on any pending litigation.”



Filed by Christine Williamson of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posted on April 3, 2009June 27, 2018

Fairfield Greenwich Accused of Madoff-Related Fraud

Financial asset management firm Fairfield Greenwich Group was charged with fraud in connection with the Bernard Madoff scandal in an administrative complaint filed Wednesday, April 1, by Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin.


The complaint alleges lack of due diligence in funneling Massachusetts investors’ money to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.


In a news release, Galvin alleged that Fairfield exhibited a “total disregard” for its fiduciary responsibilities in placing 95 percent of the $7.2 billion in Fairfield’s Sentry Funds with Madoff, who pleaded guilty in federal court in March to running a giant Ponzi scheme.


Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Galvin, said Fairfield Greenwich will have 21 days to respond to the allegations before a hearings officer from the state’s Securities Division, with the option of appealing any eventual ruling to Superior Court.


The administrative complaint seeks restitution for losses and disgorgement of performance fees paid to Fairfield by those investors, as well as an administrative fine. Fairfield earned a fee of 1 percent of the Sentry funds’ assets under management, plus a 20 percent performance fee based on the funds’ returns, the news release said.


In a statement released Wednesday, April 1, Fairfield Greenwich said it “intends to vigorously contest the allegations in the complaint,” which it termed “false and misleading.” The statement said the Massachusetts complaint is based on “20-20 hindsight that supposes that anyone familiar with Madoff’s operations should have determined that it was a Ponzi scheme.”



Filed by Douglas Appell of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posted on April 2, 2009June 27, 2018

Adecco Replaces Top Executive

Adecco, the world’s largest staffing firm, named a new CEO on Thursday, April 2, and announced that its current top executive will leave at the end of the month. The company said it will still continue with plans to build up its professional staffing business.


The new CEO, Patrick De Maeseneire, currently is top executive at European chocolate company Barry Callebaut.


However, De Maeseneire had several executive roles at Adecco before going to Barry Callebaut in 2002. De Maeseneire started at Adecco as country manager for the Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg region in 1998, and later led its global professional staffing business out of New York.


Adecco’s current CEO, Dieter Scheiff, formally assumed the post in April 2006 from then-CEO Klaus Jacobs. Scheiff had previously served as CEO of German staffing firm DIS, which was acquired by Adecco.


Jacobs, who died last year, also served as chairman of Adecco, but did not stand for re-election in 2007. Jacobs Holdings holds 22.8 percent of Adecco’s shares and 50.5 percent of Barry Callebaut, according to annual reports from both companies.


In a conference call with analysts Thursday, April 2, Adecco chairman Rolf Dörig said it was the board that opted to look for a new CEO.


Dörig also said the company will maintain its current direction.


“Adecco will continue to build on what we have started three years ago,” he said. “The company will continue to pursue its dual objective of building up the professional staffing business while continuing to optimize operations in the general staffing, with a particular focus on delivery models, specialization and cost leadership. So there will be no change in strategy.”


Dörig said Adecco is looking at building the professional business both organically and through acquisitions.


Adecco posted 2008 revenue of €19.97 billion ($28.15 billion).


—Staffing Industry Analysts


Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 … Page 591 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress