Termination a 'procedural,' not 'substantive,' contract violation

Preussag International Steel Corp. (PISC), an American subsidiary of a German conglomerate, hired Reiner Botterbusch in 1981 as its president and CEO. A written employment contract with the company dated Jan. 1, 1986, designated Botterbusch as such and established a 36-month employment term to be renewed automatically for successive 36-month periods.

The contact was amended on Feb. 15, 1994, establishing an employment term of five years from Jan. 1, 1995, to Jan. 1, 2000. The amendment stated that if the term was not otherwise terminated, it would automatically extend for an additional period. The agreement would expire when Botterbusch turned 65.

On Aug 25, 1998, PISC informed Botterbusch by letter that it had terminated his employment without cause, effective immediately. Botterbusch's employment contract required his employer to give him 270 days written notice of termination. Preussag paid him at full salary for the next 270 days.

Botterbusch sued PISC for breach of contract, arguing that his termination was ineffective because the company did not give him the 270 days notice required by his contract. He argued that his employment automatically renewed on Jan. 1, 2000, for another period that extended through his 65th birthday on July 22, 2003, so he was . . . '; owed $1 million in compensation.