• by Steve McClellan  @mp_mcclellan, August 6, 2013

A New York Judge has tossed a suit by a former Interpublic Group executive who tried to claim that he was entitled to hundreds of millions in profits that the company earned from an early investment in Facebook.

Granting IPG’s request to dismiss the case, Judge Eileen Bransten of the New York State Supreme Court called the claims of the plaintiff, Ray Volpe, “vague, conclusory and contradictory.”

Volpe, a former IPG account executive, sued IPG in 2012, contending that he struck an “oral agreement,” with the holding company that entitled him to the profits on the company’s initial $2.5 million investment in Facebook. That investment, part of what was termed a “strategic alliance,” was made back in 2006.

IPG sold the stock over a period that spanned 2011-12, earning a profit of $380 million. Volpe contended that IPG CEO Michael Roth agreed to a deal via email that gave Volpe and Howard Draft, now executive chairman of Draftfcb, rights to all profits on the block of Facebook shares.

Volpe said IPG agreed to the deal because he and Draft agreed to personally guarantee that advertisers would buy $10 million in Facebook ads, a condition that was part of the initial agreement that enabled IPG to purchase stock in the social network.

In court papers IPG denied it ever agreed to such a deal. But even if it did, the company argued that Volpe’s compensation terms were clearly spelled out in a written “Final Employment Agreement” that didn’t mention any bonuses or other payments linked to the Facebook investment.

In a decision issued Aug. 2, Judge Bransten agreed with IPG’s interpretation.

“The plain language” of  Volpe’s employment contract is unambiguous, Bransten ruled. The contract stated that “this agreement constitutes the entire understanding and supersedes any and all previous agreements [between Volpe and IPG] concerning …any compensation or bonuses.”

Judge Bransten also denied Volpe’s request to move the case to arbitration, ruling that he initiated the case in New York State Supreme Court and that to allow the shift would amount to “venue shopping.”

IPG issued this statement: "The assertions made by Mr. Volpe in his claim were completely inaccurate and without legal merit.  We’re pleased that the court has agreed with our position and has dismissed the case in its entirety.”

Volpe’s attorney Neal Brickman didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.