![]() An annual guaranteed draw of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00), paid in accordance with the Employer's normal payroll policies and procedures.During the term of this agreement, Employer shall pay the following: The terms and conditions of your employment may be amended from time to time, as the needs of the Employer may require․Ĥ. Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment. Morton was an at-will employee, but he also had an employment agreement with Sheaff Brock that provided in relevant part as follows:ģ. Because assessments were subject to proration, Sheaff Brock did not finally settle each client's account and determine the management fees due on account balances until the end of each quarter. Clients who opened new accounts during a quarter were assessed a management fee for the pro-rated number of days remaining in the quarter, and clients who left during a quarter received a credit against the management fee for the pro-rated number of days remaining in the quarter. TD Ameritrade, on behalf of Sheaff Brock, assessed the management fees at the start of each quarter. Most of Sheaff Brock's clients were referred by TD Ameritrade, which assessed an annual investment management fee against client account balances on a quarterly basis. At that point, Morton had fulfilled his duties as an investment advisor representative, and other Sheaff Brock employees assumed responsibility for servicing the client's needs. If a prospective client elected to open an account with Sheaff Brock, the client signed an investment advisory agreement (“investment agreement”). ![]() Morton's duties included providing prospective clients with information about Sheaff Brock's investment styles and strategies. On March 1, 2010, Morton began his employment with Sheaff Brock as an investment advisor representative. Whether Morton is entitled to appellate attorney's fees. Whether the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of Sheaff Brock on Morton's constructive fraud claim.Ģ. Morton cross-appeals and presents two issues for our review:ġ. Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Morton's additional compensation under the employment agreement constitutes a wage under the Wage Claims Act. ![]() ![]() Whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Sheaff Brock breached its contract with Morton.Ģ. Sheaff Brock presents two issues for our review:ġ. Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC (“Sheaff Brock”) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of David Morton on Morton's claims that Sheaff Brock breached its employment agreement with Morton and violated Indiana's Wage Claims Act. Blackwell, Hopper Blackwell, PC, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee. Mayes, Bose, McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant. SHEAFF BROCK INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC, Appellant–Defendant, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |