Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Investors May Be Liable to WARN Act Plaintiffs

Mark A. Konkel

Major investors in companies that commit violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act may not be immune to liability, according to a federal court sitting in the Southern District of New York. <i>Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC</i>, No. 02 Civ. 2059 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2004). Relying on Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, the court denied a motion to dismiss the claims of a class of plaintiffs who were terminated by a bankrupt company against the investors in the bankrupt entity.

The Bankruptcy Hotline

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Recent cases of importance to you and your practice.

Features

Critical Ruling on Compensation from Supreme Court

Luis Salazar

The Supreme Court has held that Bankruptcy Code Section 330(a)(1) does not allow a Chapter 7 debtor's attorney to be compensated from the estate unless the attorney is employed by the Trustee with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. Lamie v. United States Trustee, 2000 WL 110846 (U.S. 2004). This decision conclusively ends the controversy over the 1994 amendments to that Section, and puts Chapter 7 debtors' counsel on notice that, if not retained pursuant to Section 327, they are on their own with respect to fees.

What Should You Know About the Rules of Evidence?

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

In last month's issue, we discussed the fact that bankruptcy lawyers may think they do not have to worry about the rules of evidence ' and we then went on to prove otherwise. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to most issues that arise in bankruptcy cases, according to Rule 9017 of the Federal rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. We discussed two of the four useful subjects under these rules: attorney-client privilege, and attorney work-product doctrine. Part Two of this article, below, discusses settlement offers and affidavits.

Features

What Are the Odds?

Grant T. Stein

28 U.S.C. ' 157(d) contains the standards for mandatory or permissive withdrawal of the reference from the Bankruptcy Court to the District Court, which…

Secret Liens: Can They Really Have Super-Priority Status?

Anne Marrs Huber

In the restructuring world certain constants exist: The Bankruptcy Code (Code) has not dramatically changed since 1978, a Chapter 7 corporate debtor cannot receive a discharge, and exemptions are defined to the penny. But be wary -- there are unknown pitfalls out there. State governments, to appear responsive to local issues caused by distressed businesses, have increasingly enacted laws that spring "secret liens" or other penalties on debtors. Although bankruptcy practitioners may instinctively deride such laws as subordinate to the federal Code, recent federal opinions disagree.

Features

Concerns About Outsourcing

Joe Danowsky

A popular managerial concept for over two decades, outsourcing now holds even greater appeal as large numbers of lesser-paid, skilled workers become accessible through improved telecommunications and workflow management techniques. As convincingly depicted in Lisa R. Smith's accompanying article, the direct cost advantages of outsourcing are stronger than ever, and at least some outsourcers are providing high quality service even for security-sensitive functions previously kept in-house. During the current jobless recovery, however, outsourcing is rapidly turning into a political hot button. Its globalized variants, "job exporting" and "offshoring," are already red hot. Although some political discussants appear self-interested and even demagogic, it's clear that widespread outsourcing is indeed associated with serious societal problems ' and probably not just in the short term.

Features

Outsourcing: The Next Generation

Lisa R. Smith

Outsourcing is top of the news in many industries, and the legal industry is no exception. Recent news reports and editorials comment exhaustively on many aspects of outsourcing, and for any of those aspects you can find someone who will opine convincingly at either end of the spectrum. Many large firms have taken the step of locating a portion of their back office outside a principal office, including, as was described in the January interview with Ralph Baxter, Orrick's Global Operations Center in West Virginia. These arrangements, while generally a great move for the firms, should not be confused with outsourcing because the services are still being provided within the firm. However, they may certainly be a viable alternative to outsourcing.

Features

Allocating Administrative Costs in Defined Contribution Retirement Plans

Mark Poerio & Eric Keller

The Employee Benefit Security Administration of the Department of Labor (DOL) has recently announced a more liberal view toward charging tax-qualified…

Features

Case Briefs

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Highlight of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next Frontier
    Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
    Read More ›
  • In the Spotlight
    On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug &amp; Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.
    Read More ›