Citi Trader Due to make $100 Million Bonus... or is he?

So I am actually surprised that people (read-the media) aren't making a very big deal over this Citigroup trader named Andrew Hall (That's a picture of the castle that he owns) who is suing Citigroup for non-payment of his compensation package of $100 Million. It is for this specific reason why I think this compensation czar is an absurd idea. This guy makes over a billion dollars for Citi and then they have the gall to not pay him? I'm usually not one to jump to a judgment but this is a little unnerving. We bail out these companies and then refuse to pay the talent??? Guess where they will go? To non-bailout firms leaving the bailout firms mere skeletons, causing more taxpayer losses.

From WSJ:

A top Citigroup Inc. trader is pressing the financial giant to honor a 2009 pay package that could total $100 million, setting the stage for a potential showdown between Citi and the government's new pay czar.

The trader, Andrew J. Hall, heads Citigroup's energy-trading unit, Phibro LLC -- a secretive operation, run from the site of a former Connecticut dairy farm, that occasionally accounts for a disproportionate chunk of Citigroup income.

Mr. Hall's pay package puts Citigroup in a tight spot. Ripping up the contract could trigger Mr. Hall's departure and a potentially messy legal fight. But making any large ...

Well apparently we'll find out sooner or later when Mr. Pay Czar has his say...

The White House will leave decisions about a Citigroup trader’s potentially $100 million bonus in the hands of Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department official in charge of compensation for executives who work for companies that received tens of billions in government aid.

Here's the rub

The Treasury Department spokesman noted that “Mr. Feinberg can't force companies to break a contractual obligation that is grandfathered in the statute. If the contract is not grandfathered by the statute (i.e. entered after the Feb 12 date), and is inconsistent with the limitations in the statute, then it is the statute that would require the contract not be followed, not Mr. Feinberg.”

What are your thoughts... do you really think that this guy doesn't deserve to be paid his bonus that was signed by both parties in legally binding contract?