Prudential exec sues over unpaid retirement bonus after moving to competitor

Even top performers receive zero retirement pay

It has come to light that a former executive life planner, regarded as a legend at Prudential Life Insurance, went to court with his former company over nonpayment of retirement benefits and ultimately reached a settlement.

The foreign-affiliated insurance giant, known as a professional organization, now faces a crisis unprecedented since its founding. Earlier this year, it emerged that over 100 current and former employees were involved in a scandal in which clients were defrauded of a total of more than 3.1 billion yen. Using methods such as offering fictitious investment schemes, the company exploited customers over an extended period. In response, the president was replaced on February 1, signaling the company’s acknowledgment of responsibility. The Financial Services Agency also launched an on-site inspection, delivering a severe blow to the company’s brand image.

Observers point to the company’s results-driven corporate culture as a key factor behind the scandal. Its strictness spared no one, not even long-serving top performers. Even employees well-known within the industry were subject to company rules far outside normal societal standards.

One such rule stated: “If an employee moves to a competitor, no retirement pay will be granted—zero yen.”

This unreasonable policy led A, who held the highest sales position of Executive Life Planner, to take the matter to court.

A, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, joined the company in the early 2000s and worked on the front lines for nearly 20 years. A former Prudential sales employee described him as follows:

“A was a famous figure known to everyone in the company. His sales performance was excellent, of course, but that wasn’t all. He served in key roles in a globally top sales organization and was a leader of outstanding character. While strict in his guidance, he generously taught his mentees the know-how he had cultivated. He was truly deserving of the nickname ‘Mr. Prudential.’”

Several years ago, A suddenly left the company, joining a multi-company insurance agency that handled a diverse range of products.

“Sales employees at Prudential can, of course, only sell Prudential products. A seemed to think, ‘To make truly beneficial proposals to clients, I need to work at an agency that can offer multiple companies’ products.’ He had strong attachment to Prudential, but he chose to prioritize honesty with clients in his career move,” the former colleague explained.

However, the company’s response was cold: A received no retirement pay. He was supposed to receive several million yen, but it was reduced to zero. The reason lay in a clause in Prudential’s Sales Employee Retirement Pay Regulations:

“For any sales employee falling under any of the following items, partial or full retirement pay may not be granted: (3) If the employee engages in work for a competitor without prior company approval.”

“Go to a competitor and lose your retirement pay.” While all Prudential employees knew this rule, A refused to accept it quietly and filed suit at the Tokyo District Court. According to the complaint, he challenged the company on two major points.

Mr. Prudential Rebels

One of A’s arguments was that he had obtained the company’s prior approval for his career move. He submitted the required documents before leaving Prudential, meaning he did not fall under the clause for unauthorized employment with a competitor, which the company cited as the reason for withholding his retirement pay.

The other point concerned the legality of the rule itself.

“It is unreasonable to erase nearly 20 years of contributions—successfully closing an extremely large number of contracts—simply because of a career change. Since the Constitution guarantees freedom of occupational choice, any internal regulation that holds retirement pay hostage to unduly restrict an employee’s job mobility violates public order and morals and is legally invalid.”

—Summary of A’s claim in the complaint

Prudential, however, fully denied that A had obtained prior approval. They argued that the submitted documents were merely procedural and did not constitute official authorization for the career change.

While the back-and-forth over whether approval was granted continued, both sides also presented arguments on the core issue: the legitimacy of nonpayment of retirement benefits.

Prudential argued in their written submission:

“The defendant has proprietary training programs and deliberately hires inexperienced sales employees. If employees were allowed to resign freely, the defendant could not recover the substantial training costs it invested, and its valuable know-how would leak to competitors. To prevent this, the defendant has a legitimate interest in withholding retirement pay from employees who move to competitors.”

In short:

“We hire inexperienced employees, invest significant time and cost to teach our proprietary know-how, so if they take that know-how to a competitor, we will not pay retirement benefits.”

Prudential also cited its sales performance metrics to show the superiority of its employees. According to their second submission, in FY2018, Prudential’s average new contract volume per salesperson was 7.3 times that of Nippon Life and 13.9 times that of Dai-ichi Life, which they attributed to their unique know-how.

A’s side strongly countered:

“Although we received initial training when hired, subsequent sales performance depended on individual skill, not the company’s proprietary know-how. The defendant’s claims about special techniques are misleading; in reality, turnover is very high, and the company’s so-called know-how did not guarantee performance.”

Essentially, even if there was initial training, A argued that his long career was supported by his own effort and skill, not the company’s supposed proprietary know-how. Using that pretext to confiscate retirement pay, he argued, violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of occupational choice and public order and morals.

Moreover, Prudential’s retirement system itself contains a major barrier: one must have 20 years of service and be at least 55 years old to receive full retirement benefits. The former colleague explained:

“If either condition is not met, the calculation coefficient for retirement pay is extremely low.”

A, despite reaching the top “Executive” rank, fell just short of these requirements. His retirement pay was therefore only a few million yen, whereas meeting the conditions could have meant tens of millions. Even this modest entitlement was denied due to his move to a competitor.

The court battle was a direct confrontation between the two sides. Surprisingly, it ended in settlement, with half the claimed amount paid. The reason for the settlement remains unclear, but it is possible that Prudential sought to avoid a judicial ruling on the legality of its retirement pay rules.

Once you quit, even contacting clients is forbidden

Ultimately, the dispute over retirement pay ended in a settlement, with half of the claimed amount paid. But Prudential’s extraordinary vigilance toward departing sales employees extended far beyond retirement benefits.

Once an employee leaves, any contact with clients secured during employment is strictly prohibited. This applies not only to moves within the insurance industry but to all sectors; even classmates or relatives are not exempt. A former employee explained:

“After leaving, all contact is forbidden. You sign a pledge twice—upon joining and upon leaving. At entry, under a program called ‘Project 100,’ you are asked to create a list of 100 friends and acquaintances and encouraged to sell to them. But once you leave, even personal friends are treated as company clients, and contacting them carries the risk of legal action. There have been cases where someone needed to reach an old client, got caught, and was warned by the company that they ‘would not hesitate to take legal measures.’”

FRIDAY Digital sent Prudential a list of questions regarding the reasonableness of the retirement pay rules, their compatibility with the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of occupational choice, the rationale behind the settlement, and the enforcement of the post-resignation client contact ban.

In response, Prudential’s public relations team stated:

“We respectfully decline to comment on the details or circumstances, as this includes individual litigation matters.”

Even top performers like A must go to court to receive their retirement pay, and they are not allowed to even greet trusted friends. This is the reality for retirees at glamorous foreign-affiliated insurance companies.

The contrast is stark: current employees allegedly driven to misconduct due to financial pressures, versus departing veterans cut off because they no longer generate profit. On the surface, these appear to be separate issues, but both stem from a corporate logic that prioritizes profit above all else.

This lawsuit, along with the massive scandal shaking the public, reflects a corporate culture where human beings take a backseat to profit—a dark underbelly and its flip side, inseparably intertwined.