Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

LJN Newsletters

  • Who's doing what; who's going where.

    August 25, 2008ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • While politicians scramble to preserve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more trouble for financial markets looms on the horizon. Proposed changes to accounting rules for securitization vehicles could decrease the significant role of structured finance in providing the liquidity that sustained recent economic expansion.

    August 25, 2008Michael J. Venditto
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a bankruptcy court's equitable subordination order on June 20, 2008. ccording to the court, subordination of the insiders' secured claims was "inappropriate" because the bankruptcy trustee had failed to show that the defendant insiders' "loans to the debtor harmed either the debtor or the general creditors." This article discusses the repercussions of that ruling.

    August 25, 2008Michael L. Cook
  • In light of recent aggressive enforcement efforts of New York's Labor Laws by both the New York State Attorney General's Office and the New York State Department of Labor ("NYSDOL"), prudent employers should consider the effect of these new enactments on their pay and leave practices and take action to ensure compliance.

    August 25, 2008Elise M. Bloom, Fredric C. Leffler and Thomas A. McKinney
  • The Retraining and Notification Act ("WARN" or The Act) creates some uncertainty for employers because it contains two potentially conflicting definitions of the term "mass layoff" ' one that looks to a 30-day period and another that aggregates layoffs over a 90-day period. This article analyzes a recent ruling that addresses the problem.

    August 25, 2008Neil V. McKittrick and Elizabeth L. Schnairsohn
  • Part One of this article, which appeared in the June issue of Employment Law Strategist, discussed proof of retaliation claims. The conclusion herein addresses what conduct is protected.

    August 25, 2008Victoria Woodin Chavey
  • Staking out an exception to the general rule that the requirement to accommodate is normally triggered by a disabled employee's request, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said an employer must take action "if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled." Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 06-5486-cv.

    August 25, 2008Mark Hamblett
  • Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.

    July 31, 2008ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |