I’m no lawyer, so no guarantees any of this is correct, but I believe it is close; and you can go look for yourself. Disclaimer on the reading, math, and anything else printed here. If you find something different, let me know and we’ll post it.

Thanks to Bo’s comment on the lawsuit, we have a number on the bank’s cost to settle Kim Bettasso’s wrongful termination from employment. The actual amount disbursed to the former employee appears to come out to $180,546. Added to that are attorney fees, taxes and expenses, all of which are apparently taken out before the payoff is actually made. The total dollars doled out by the bank to settle with the former employee comes out to something very close to $275,000.

Also of interest is the timing of the payments. Let’s regress.

Ms. Balensiefen was terminated on September 27, 2009. The first amended complaint was filed on December 23, 2010. The first settlement conference was scheduled for November 8, 2011; almost eleven months later.  The case isn’t scheduled to go to trial until 2013.

According to the information gleaned from the records, Kim Bettasso’s termination occurred on August 11, 2009 and she received a payment by October 30, 2009 with another anticipated, at that time, for January 5, 2010. That didn’t even take three months. Was that because she didn’t want as much money, or because she had a better attorney, or because it had been negotiated prior to her termination? But why would that be, you ask? Me, too.

Bo, feel free to make any corrections or additions you like. I could have missed a lot. I don’t think I added anything.

13 comments on “Payoff?

  1. ONE mans ego has jeopardized the jobs of many innocent people. His narcissistic behavior is legendary. He must have something on all of the board members to get them to go along with these outrageous decisions.

  2. Does this paragraph from the OCC Bank Director’s Book need to be pounded into the heads of the CFNB directors?

    “. . .The board and bank management must work together to promote the bank’s best interests. Both must understand that management works for the board—the board does not work for management. When management dictates the actions for the board to take, the board neither fulfills its responsibilities nor serves the bank well. . . .”

    I think we all believe that in reality the board worked for Tony. At least I do.

Comments are closed.