NEW YORK — Merrill Lynch & Co.'s former brokerage chief Robert McCann and the investment bank's new parent, Bank of America Corp., have resolved a lawsuit over whether he can work for a rival before January 2010, Merrill Lynch said in a statement Monday.
No details of how the litigation was resolved were released. A phone call to McCann's lawyer wasn't immediately returned Thursday.
McCann sued Bank of America in New York State Supreme Court in August, seeking to prevent the bank from preventing him from taking another job before next January. He left the bank in January, days after it completed its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, reported last month that McCann has been offered the job as head of UBS AG's U.S. brokerage force.
As part of his lawsuit, McCann had claimed he resigned from Bank of America with "good reason" in January in part because his responsibilities following the merger had been substantially diminished, which would have entitled him to full benefits and salary for six months. He also cited not receiving a bonus in 2008 as another reason for resigning with "good reason."
McCann had claimed Bank of America, after initially accepting his reasoning, backtracked and cut off his salary and benefits at the end of January.
Bank of America had claimed that McCann agreed, as part of a noncompete pact, not to work for a rival before January 2010 and that the relief he was seeking from the court was unprecedented.
At a court hearing last month, McCann testified he had received a job offer from a rival but wasn't sure it would be there in January.
"They are becomining increasingly frustrated by my inability to go to work," said McCann at the time, without naming the company.
