The federal government may not recognize same-sex couples, but it can pay benefits to their children. That is the result of a U.S. Department of Justice opinion released June 9.
August 25, 2008Sue Reisinger
At the May 2008 AAML (American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers) Matrimonial Arbitration Training Institute, presenters from North Carolina, Michigan and Texas, with scores of years of arbitration experience, gave advice about the responsibility of arbitrators and the smooth presentation of an arbitration case. That training is being considered through the lens of an important Pennsylvania matrimonial arbitration case: Deborah Kennedy v. Michael Kennedy.
August 25, 2008Mary Cushing DohertyWhile 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. VendittoThe 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. CookA series of high-profile decisions issued within the past year addressed Chapter 15's strict recognition procedures and denied recognition to proceedings involving hedge funds registered in the Cayman Islands.
August 25, 2008Michael J. Sage and Joshua WeisserIn 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. McKinneyThe 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. SchnairsohnPart 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 ChaveyStaking 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