突发！“四大”某记前合伙人就退休金问题起诉公司|澳大利亚_新浪财经

来源：四大新鲜事儿

据Financial Review2024年2月2日报道，一名前普华永道澳洲合伙人向新南威尔士州最高法院起诉老东家，要求恢复其因公司税务泄露丑闻损失的退休金，这一案件可能为其他合伙人争取利润丰厚的养老金开辟道路。

Paul McNab曾担任普华永道澳洲的税务合伙人长达22年，他对公司退休计划中的一项关键条款提出了质疑，该条款规定，如果合伙人离开公司去“主要竞争对手”工作，他们将无法获得每年约14万美元的养老金。

在去年税务泄露丑闻中，普华永道公布了涉及相关邮件的四名高管，McNab就是其中之一。自此，McNab就丧失了获得养老金计划的机会。

去年11月，普华永道通过艾伦律师事务所(allen)致信McNab，由于他“涉及与未经授权使用机密信息”，公司确认不会支付这笔退休金。

据McNab提供的法律文件，普华永道的信中写道：“作为普华永道的合伙人，McNab在未经授权的情况下，涉及擅自使用属于联邦政府财政部(Treasury)的机密信息。”

“由于未能履行对普华永道的义务，McNab先生给普华永道造成的损失和损害远远超过了普华永道可能支付给他的所有未来终止合同后的薪酬。”

“因此，终止合约后，普华永道不建议向McNab支付任何薪酬，并追溯至2023年8月1日。”

普华永道的退休金计划利润丰厚，而且是保密的。该计划资金来源于公司的持续利润，普华永道澳大利亚公司每年需支付超过625名前合伙人退休金，每人14万美元，其中一些是终身的。该计划旨在奖励前员工的工作，阻止他们加入竞争对手，并鼓励他们在离职后长期忠于普华永道。

McNab称，在他于2020年离职加入DLA Piper时，普华永道将其视为普华永道的“主要竞争对手”，因此拒绝他领取退休金。当普华永道澳大利亚点名他也涉及税务泄露事件后，他觉得有必要从DLA Piper辞职。

他的诉求包括自2020年最初离开公司以来未支付的退休金总额，加上利息，以及他有权获得的持续付款。在诉状中他没有具体说明涉案金额。

McNab的声明详细说明了他是如何在1998年成为现在的普华永道(PwC)澳大利亚公司的合伙人，并在该公司工作了22年，直至2020年退休。法律文件显示，当他告知普华永道澳大利亚公司他打算以合伙人的身份转投DLA Piper 时，公司却告知他“在他继续担任DLA Piper合伙人期间，他的离职后福利支付支付将被暂停，此后可能会减少”。

他辩称，“DLA Piper不是普华永道的‘主要竞争对手’”，在普华永道澳大利亚公司的合伙协议中，“DLA Piper没有被明确列为主要竞争对手”。

去年5月，在税务泄密丑闻的严重程度被公之于众后，普华永道告知其合伙人和一个参议院委员会，包括McNab在内的四名“涉嫌泄露澳大利亚税务局机密信息”的前合伙人已离开该公司。

普华永道向参议院委员会报告：它“已经停止，未来也不打算向这四个人中的任何一人支付任何款项”，同时也承认，这四人离开普华永道“与他们参与此事无关”。

普华永道在对税务泄密事件的法律调查总结中表示，2015年年中，McNab向至少一位客户透露了该事务所正在帮助财政部设计新税法以及这些法律的生效日期等机密信息。

该公司在声明中表示:“McNab利用这些信息向客户推销税务服务，这既存在利益冲突，也违反了保密规定。”

McNab否认有任何不当行为，并表示在被他提名给合伙人和参议院的调查之前，公司没有提前告知他。

不过，为了DLA Piper的“利益”最大化，在他的名字被披露给普华永道合伙人和参议院之前，他通过双方协议离开了DLA Piper。离开DLA Piper大约三个月后，他创办了一家私人税务公司。

法律文件显示，McNab辩称，普华永道“没有说明McNab无权获得解雇后薪酬的任何(法律或其他)依据”。

普华永道澳大利亚的一位发言人表示:“对法院审理的事情发表评论是不合适的。”该公司长期以来一直认为，合伙人在签约时可以自由地同意合伙协议及其规则。

McNab拒绝置评。

McNab的民事诉讼如果成功，可能会导致其他因在不同专业服务公司工作而被暂停或减少薪酬的普华永道前合伙人也提起诉讼。这可能涉及数百名前合伙人，每年可能支付数百万美元。

此前，也有两位被点名卷入税务泄露丑闻的合伙人对普华永道提起诉讼。

当地时间2023年7月3日，普华永道澳大利亚公司宣布，作为对前合伙人泄露政府机密税收计划内部调查的一部分，该公司已经解雇了8名合伙人，他们已经或即将离开事务所。2023年9月，其中一位名叫Richard Gregg的合伙人提起诉讼，声称普华永道澳大利亚公司将他从合伙企业中除名时没有向他提供充分的理由。

另一位被点名的前合伙人Neil Fuller已撤回去年在新南威尔士州地方法院对普华永道提起的诉讼。

原英文报道如下：

A former PwC partner is suing the consulting giant in the NSW Supreme Court demanding the restoration of retirement payments lost during the tax leaks scandal in a case that could open the way for other partners to pursue lucrative pension rights.

Paul McNab, formerly tax partner for 22 years, is challenging a key clause in the firm’s retirement plan that denies pension payments to partners – which are worth around $140,000 a year – if they leave to work for a “major competitor”.

Mr McNab’s access to the pension plan was cut off after he was named by PwC as one of four senior personnel who appeared in emails associated with last year’s tax leaks scandal.

PwC’s retirement payment plan is lucrative and secretive. It pays more than 625 former partners $140,000 a year – some for life – out of the continuing profits of the firm. It is designed to reward former personnel for their work, stop them joining rivals and encourage loyalty to PwC long after they have departed. It has also raised conflict concerns.

Mr McNab’s civil action, if successful, could lead to other former PwC partners who have had their payments paused or reduced due to working at different professional services firms to also sue. This might involve hundreds of ex-partners and payments worth potentially millions of dollars a year.

Mr McNab alleges that PwC denied him access to retirement payments when he left to join DLA Piper in 2020 by invalidly deeming the law firm as a “major competitor” of PwC.

He further argues that PwC then wrongly cut off his access to the plan when he felt obliged to resign from DLA Piper after the firm named him in relation to the tax leaks matter.

He is seeking the total amount of his unpaid retirement payments dating back to when he initially left the firm in 2020, plus interest, as well as the ongoing payments he is entitled to. The amount of money involved was not specified in the legal pleading.

The lawsuit, filed in the NSW Supreme Court on January 25 on Mr McNab’s behalf by Asia Lenard of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, brings unwelcome publicity to PwC as it seeks to move on from the tax leaks matter and rebuild its public standing.

A spokesman for PwC said, “it would be inappropriate to comment on a matter before the courts”. The firm has held the long-standing view that partners freely agree to the partnership agreement and its rules when they sign up.

Mr McNab declined to comment. The case is the third by a current or former PwC partner that was named by the firm as part of its response to the tax leaks scandal.

Last September, PwC partner Richard Gregg successfully sued the firm for wrongly naming him as part of a separate group of eight senior partners who it said had either been involved in the tax leak scandal or had not adequately addressed matters.

Another former partner, Neil Fuller, has withdrawn an action against PwC filed last year in the NSW District Court. Comment has been sought from Mr Fuller’s lawyers.

DLA Piper ‘not validly designated’

The PwC tax leaks matter involved a former tax partner sharing secret government information within the firm. It was then used to develop schemes to sidestep new tax laws he was helping to develop. The scandal rocked the firm’s Australian operation and increased scrutiny of the multibillion-dollar consulting sector.

Mr McNab’s statement details how he became a partner at what is now PwC in 1998 and retired in 2020 “after 22 successful years” at the firm. When he informed the firm he intended to move to DLA Piper as a partner, he was told that his “entitlement to post termination payments [would be] suspended while he remained a partner of DLA Piper, and potentially reduced thereafter,” according to the legal filing.

He argues that “DLA Piper was not a ‘major competitor’ of PwC” and “was not validly designated as a Listed Firm” in the firm’s partnership agreement.

After the extent of the tax leaks scandal was made public last May, PwC told its partners and a Senate committee that four former partners, including Mr McNab, who were “involved in the breach of confidential Australia Tax Office information” had left the firm.

The firm told the Senate committee that it had “ceased making, and does not intend to make, any future payments to any of the four individuals” while also conceding that the four had left PwC “for reasons unrelated to their involvement in this matter.”

In its summary of the legal investigations into the tax leaks matter, PwC stated that in mid-2015 Mr McNab revealed to at least one client the confidential information that the firm was helping Treasury design new tax laws and the starting date of those laws.

“[The] use of that information by Mr McNab to market tax services to clients was a conflict of interest and an additional breach of confidentiality,” he firm said in its statement.

Mr McNab, who has denied any wrongdoing, complained that the firm did not warn him that he would be named to partners and the Senate inquiry. He also said that he had “trusted that the information shared with me as a partner of the firm would comply with any confidentiality agreements that may have been in place with Treasury.”

Despite this, he decided it would be “in the best interests of” the law firm and departed DLA Piper by mutual agreement ahead of his name being disclosed to the PwC partnership and the Senate. He then launched a private tax practice about three months after leaving the law firm.

‘No legal basis’

The legal filing argues that PwC “did not state any basis (legally or otherwise) on which [Mr McNab] was disentitled to Post Termination Payments.”

In November, PwC, via law firm Allens, wrote to Mr McNab to confirm that it would not make the retirement payments because he was “relevantly involved in the unauthorised use of confidential information”.

“[W]hile a partner of PwC, Mr McNab was relevantly involved in the unauthorised use of confidential information belonging to the Federal Government’s Department of the Treasury (Treasury),” the PwC letter states, according to Mr McNab’s legal filing.

“By reason of this involvement, Mr McNab breached obligations owed to PwC, including (amongst others) those under the Partnership Agreement. In failing to comply with his obligations owed to PwC … Mr McNab has caused PwC loss and damage well in excess of all future post termination payments … that PwC may have otherwise paid to him.

“Consequently, our client does not propose to pay to your client any Payments After Terminations, including retroactively to 1 August 2023.”