The curious case of Paul Liska’s departure as Motorola’s chief financial officer just became more bizarre. In court documents supplied to BusinessWeek by Cook County [Ill.] court officials, Liska details differences with his former employer, alleging that the Schaumburg [Ill.]-based cell-phone maker repeatedly misrepresented the financial performance of its Mobile Devices unit and that he was unlawfully dismissed.
In a complaint filed in late February in Cook County Circuit Court and held under seal by Judge Allen S. Goldberg until Apr. 9, Liska says he became increasingly alarmed over what he considers misstatements of the division’s performance. He also alleges that he was unlawfully fired when he brought his concerns to the attention of the board. The documents, along with Motorola’s response, depict an increasingly acrimonious relationship between Liska and Motorola’s management against a backdrop of worsening financial performance in what was once its flagship business.
During the fourth quarter of 2008, Liska began to “develop concerns that the executives within the Mobile Devices Business were, intentionally or recklessly, materially misstating its 2009 forecasts and strategic plan,” according to the filing. In his view, the forecasts were “based on inaccurate or unsupportable financial assumptions.” Liska, the complaint says, warned Motorola’s board of directors about the “continual forecasting errors,” saying that they would have “a significant deleterious impact on Motorola’s credit ratings and relationships, particularly if Mobile Devices’ actual results continued to fall well short of its actual forecasts.”
Whistleblower Claim
In the complaint, Liska alleges “retaliatory discharge,” legalese for a whistleblower lawsuit, saying his firing “violated mandated policy that favors full disclosure, truthfulness and accuracy in financial reports.” The lawsuit also alleges a breach of contract; Liska, who had been hired in March 2008, says he has not received the severance pay he is owed. Liska is demanding a jury trial.
In a response filed…