April 25, 2024

DealBook: TCW Settles Suit With Its Former Star Investor

One of the year’s most contentious white-collar employment disputes came to an end Thursday, as Trust Company of the West, the California-based mutual fund, announced that it had settled a lawsuit with its former star investor, Jeffrey E. Gundlach.

The settlement, announced in two separate statements by TCW, as Trust Company of the West is known, and DoubleLine Capital, Mr. Gundlach’s new fund, capped a bitter and protracted dispute that turned the normally anodyne mutual fund world into a heated legal battleground. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and the firms said in statements that they would not discuss it further.

TCW sued Mr. Gundlach, its former chief investment officer, in 2010 for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, accusing him and several associates of stealing trade secrets and breaching their fiduciary duty in order to set up a competing firm after he was fired from TCW in 2009.

Mr. Gundlach countersued, arguing that he was entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars in lost fees from the funds he oversaw at TCW. More than 40 TCW employees eventually followed Mr. Gundlach to DoubleLine.

A six-week trial ensued this summer, during which attorneys for TCW tried to paint Mr. Gundlach, a closely watched figure in fixed-income investing who has referred to himself as “the Pope” and “the Godfather,” as a self-centered renegade who was bent on sabotaging the firm. DoubleLine’s legal team tried to show that Mr. Gundlach’s ouster was the result of a long-held vendetta by Marc Stern, the firm’s chief executive, and other firm officials.

In September, a Los Angeles jury gave a mixed verdict in the civil case that awarded Mr. Gundlach and three associates $66.7 million in damages in the countersuit, while finding them liable for breaching their fiduciary duty to TCW and misappropriating trade secrets.

Thursday’s settlement will essentially override the jury’s verdict, which had yet to be finalized by a judge. The judge, Carl J. West, had yet to rule on an outstanding dispute over whether TCW was owed millions of dollars in “reasonable royalties” for the jury’s trade secrets finding.

TCW, a unit of the French bank Societe Generale, has been the target of speculation in recent weeks. After reports surfaced that the bank, which has been trying to raise capital by selling non-core assets, was planning to sell the mutual fund manager, it batted down the rumors.

With a settlement with Mr. Gundlach and DoubleLine now behind it, TCW will have one fewer worry going into the new year.

“We are pleased that an agreement has been reached and that this matter is now behind us,” Peter Viles, a TCW spokesman, said in an e-mail. “TCW is well positioned to continue the strong momentum and growth it has established over the past two years.”


This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 30, 2011

An earlier version of the headline for this post misstated the name of the mutual fund company that settled the suit. It is TCW, not TWC.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=57636a96f20e4e891bdc238a9971944c

A Few Billion Off the Top?

Forty-eight stories above Fifth Avenue, Mr. Peterson, sitting among the views of Central Park and photos of himself with presidents and premiers, considered the wrangling in Washington with a distant disappointment: a sort of New York Establishment dismay.

“There are thousands of people focused on the short term,” he said, “on whether spending cuts will be 23 or 33 billion dollars. But the transcendent problem, the potentially terminal problem, is the long term. That’s what interests me.”

At 84, Pete Peterson embodies the long term, especially where the national debt is concerned. He has been talking — some would say droning on — about the subject for more than 30 years. He used $1 billion of his Wall Street fortune to create the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, whose sole purpose is to educate Americans about the dangers of the debt. He provided staff members to President Obama’s fiscal commission last year. He speaks endlessly about the debt in public, writes countless editorials on the topic and travels regularly to Washington from his East Side home to confer on the matter with high-ranking senators.

“I think of him as the godfather of this whole effort of trying to bring sanity to our nation’s finances,” said Erskine B. Bowles, co-chairman of the presidential commission.

Aside from being a godfather, Mr. Peterson is also a former adviser to Richard M. Nixon, a onetime chief executive of Lehman Brothers, a co-founder of the Blackstone private equity group and an ex-president of the Council on Foreign Relations. It would be hard to find a more established establishmentarian and yet, in a strange-bedfellows twist, his passionate, persistent and personal “last crusade” against the debt is one he shares — albeit with differences — with Paulists (as in Ron and Rand), critics of the Federal Reserve and the man on the corner with the sign saying, “Lo, the End Is Nigh!”

Both he and they insist that spending cuts, as they are currently conceived, are small to the point of being meaningless. Both he and they suggest that long-untouchable portions of the budget, like entitlements and defense, must be reduced; both he and they describe the multitrillion-dollar debt as an existential threat to future generations.

“The Tea Party crowd, if you want to call it that, is not Pete Peterson’s crowd, but his message speaks to the political mob,” said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Pete may be using them as leverage to get to the Establishment, which is his natural audience — to force the Establishment to act.”

Maybe, maybe not. The tonal differences between Mr. Peterson and the Tea Party crowd — he is measured, they are loud; he is patrician, they are populist — are distinct enough that he himself admitted last week to an odd, even aloof, ignorance of the group.

“I don’t know much about them,” he said, adding that he recently had his staff compile a dossier on the group. Cautious, methodical, devoted to analysis, he did what he often does when he feels uninformed: his homework.

DOING homework has long been Mr. Peterson’s way. Raised in Depression-era Nebraska, he is the self-made son of a Greek diner owner who arrived in America speaking no English. Fiscal prudence was banged into Mr. Peterson’s childhood skull. He claims to have bathed with his brother in the lukewarm water that his parents left behind in the tub. A sign on the diner’s paper-towel dispenser read, “Why Use Two When One Wipes Dry?”

After stints at M.I.T. (he was expelled for plagiarizing a term paper) and at Northwestern (he paid his way by waiting on tables at a sorority house), Mr. Peterson worked in advertising, in Chicago, in the Mad Men era, and at 34, he became the president of the electronics manufacturer Bell Howell (where he laid claim to the invention of the boom box). A connection to John J. McCloy, a Wall Street mandarin, helped secure a position in the Nixon administration, where he became known as “the economic Kissinger.”

In 1973, Mr. Peterson went to Wall Street, serving as the chief executive at Lehman Brothers, where he earned a reputation as a cautious, if standoffish, leader focused on long-term profits. After a struggle between the firm’s investment bankers — whom he epitomized — and its aggressive bond-trading desk, he was forced out. Within a year, he founded Blackstone, which he turned into a multibillion-dollar firm with a partner, Stephen A. Schwarzman.

Mr. Peterson’s epiphany about the debt came, aptly enough, while he was looking for a house in the Hamptons. It was 1981, and he recounts making a deal with the seller who ran the Women’s Economic Round Table: she would accept his offer on the house if he would give an address about Ronald Reagan’s budget to her group. He started researching, and “what I found astonished me,” he wrote in his autobiography, “The Education of an American Dreamer”: unbridled government spending, unbridled federal tax cuts and no attention to “the elephants in the room” — Social Security and Medicare.

“He viewed it as a bad approach that would damage the country in the long term,” Mr. Schwarzman said in an interview. “So he started writing articles.”

The first, “Social Security: The Coming Crash,” appeared, in 1982, in The New York Review of Books, and was so controversial for its analysis and apocalyptic tone that the journal set aside an entire issue for rebuttals.

“He strongly anticipated the debate that’s going on right now,” said Robert Silvers, who edited the piece. “Every theme that’s in play at the moment was in that article, particularly health care costs and entitlements.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=87a49233a71d493e8564050347d4fdde