Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employee Claims in Bankruptcy Pose Significant Liability Exposure
When a corporation determines to file for Chapter 11 protection, questions concerning the status of existing labor and employment agreements and viability of employee claims immediately arise. Indeed, there are litanies of potential pitfalls for companies that file for bankruptcy without strictly following the requirements of federal or state employment laws.
Perhaps the most-well known among these is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), which mandates that companies pay compensation up to average earnings for no more than 60 days. This compensation is paid to replace earnings lost by prematurely terminated employees. If this liability is triggered within 180 days of the bankruptcy filing, such liability amounts to a first-tier, fourth-priority (wages) claim under section 507(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (see In re Riker Ins. Indus., Inc., and In re Cargo, Inc.). If triggered during the post-petition period, such liability is a first-tier, first-priority claim under section 507(a) of the WARN Act (see In re Hanlin Grp.).
“Back pay” is also a common remedy under other federal and state employment laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as the historic common law remedy for unlawful termination due to unfair labor practices.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.