Involuntary Petitions Under BAPCPA
May 29, 2007
Last month, tha authors noted that on Oct. 17, 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ('BAPCPA') was implemented without the collapse of the bankruptcy world as we knew it. They discussed the 'changes' to ' 303, and several key cases. This article continues the discussion.
Fraudulent Transfer Analysis Turns Sour
May 29, 2007
The Third Circuit, on March 30, 2007, affirmed a district court judgment dismissing a $500 million fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty suit against Campbell Soup Co., the former parent of Vlasic Foods International ('VFI' or the 'debtor'). <i>VFB, LLC v. Campbell Soup Co.</i>, 2007 WL 942360 (3d Cir. 3/30/07). VFI's creditors, acting through the reorganized entity, known as VFB, claimed that Campbell's March, 1998 $500 million stock sale (or 'leveraged Spin') of its Specialty Foods Division (including subsidiaries such as Vlasic (pickles) and Swanson (TV dinners)) to VFI, a newly formed, wholly owned subsidiary, was a fraudulent transfer because VFI did not receive reasonably equivalent value and because its $500 million payment rendered it insolvent and under-capitalized. The Third Circuit, however, held that the District Court had properly found the Division acquired by the debtor to be 'worth well in excess' of the $500 million purchase price, and that the debtor was solvent at the time of its 1998 purchase. Relying on the District Court's market capitalization
Anti-Suit Injunctions
May 29, 2007
In a case of significance to the secondary loan and distressed claim market, a North Carolina state court has entered an 'anti-suit injunction' barring a group of secondary, secured debt holders (the 'Fund Defendants'), from commencing any actions against Wachovia Bank. The case, <i>Wachovia Bank, NA and Wachovia Capital Partners, LLC v. Harbinger Capital Partners, et al</i>, Civ. Action No. 07-CVS-5097, is pending in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division (Mecklenburg, NC) (the 'State Court Anti-Suit Action'), but its parties and the underlying facts arise from the Chapter 11 case of <i>In re Le-Nature, Inc.</i>, pending in United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (the 'Bankruptcy Case').
Verdicts
May 29, 2007
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Rethinking Mandatory Arbitration of Employment Disputes
May 29, 2007
For a number of reasons discussed below, employers truly interested in turning back the clock on the 1991 amendments to Title VII would be well served to cease using mandatory arbitration agreements and instead have their employees execute waivers of their right to jury trials. It is juries that employers generally fear, not the courts themselves. Prior to the 1991 amendments, employers felt no imperative to exempt themselves from the civil justice system available in the courts. Thus, employers do not now need to flee the court system altogether in order to avoid jury trials, and there is certainly no reason for them to require their employees to agree to the wholesale replacement of court litigation with mandatory arbitration.
Court Certifies Class in Wal-Mart Case
May 29, 2007
On Feb. 6, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the district court's certification of a nationwide class of approximately 1.5 million current and former female employees who were employed at one or more of Wal-Mart's 3400 stores across the county. The court's ruling is significant due to the 'historic' nature of the plaintiffs' motion, which sought approval of 'the largest certified class in history,' and because many of the court's findings, if they stand, undoubtedly will form part of the judicial debate in other jurisdictions as to the appropriate standards in analyzing the availability of class certification in large employment discrimination cases.
GA High Court Ruling May Widen Workers' Comp Net
May 29, 2007
The Georgia Supreme Court issued a sharply divided ruling on March 26 that some say exposes employers to workers' compensation claims for just about anything their employees might do while traveling. <i>Ray Bell Construction Co. v. King</i>, S06G0891.
The Office Bully: Are You Liable?
May 29, 2007
Title VII and similar state statutes penalize employees who harass others based on their status in a protected class. But there are currently no federal or state laws outlawing simple 'bullying.' However, the absence of these statutes does not permit employers to ignore with impunity the 'equal opportunity jerk' in their offices simply because the conduct, while obnoxious, is directed at everyone. In <i>EEOC v. National Education Association ' Alaska ('NEA-Alaska')</i>, 422 F. 2d 840 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit extended Title VII's reach to prohibit a supervisor's unquestionably abusive, but non-gender-related conduct, because the behavior impacted female employees more harshly than their male counterparts. Even before this case, there existed a grassroots movement to outlaw workplace bullying.
