Employers Face Uncertainty of Immigration Reform
May 30, 2006
For years, the government has downplayed interior enforcement of our immigration laws. Inspections of I-9 compliance were nearly extinct; illegal workers thrived under a 'catch and release' deportation standard and lenient I-9 standard; and no one seemed to care about the Social Security mismatch problem. All of that is changing.
Bankruptcy Battleground
May 30, 2006
Whether an arbitration clause in a contract will be enforced by the bankruptcy courts in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act has been the focus of numerous court decisions in recent times. The consensus among most courts addressing the issue has been that a bankruptcy court can adjudicate a dispute otherwise subject to binding arbitration if the dispute falls within the court's 'core' jurisdiction. Even so, rulings recently handed down by the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeal suggest that the scope of a bankruptcy court's retained discretion in this area may be even less broad than is generally understood.
Who Decides the Validity of Your Contract?
May 30, 2006
Who do you turn to if you believe that an agreement is invalid? Should it make a difference if the agreement contains an arbitration clause? If it does have such a clause, can you nonetheless walk into court and have a judge decide? Or must the dispute go to arbitration? The Catch-22 is this: If an arbitrator were to determine that the agreement is invalid, the arbitrator logically would seem to have no jurisdiction over the matter to start with, because the arbitration clause therein should be invalid too. But if you were to litigate that dispute in court, and a judge determined that the agreement is valid, then an arbitrator should have resolved all disputes pursuant to the arbitration clause therein.
Protecting Against the Possibility of Catastrophic Events: Careful Consideration of Force Majeure Clauses in Commercial Leases
May 30, 2006
When commercial landlords and tenants negotiate commercial lease agreements, the normal focus of their efforts is the essential conditions of the tenancy ' rent amount, lease term, option periods, and the like. Often overlooked, however, are those provisions generally considered 'standard boilerplate.' <i>Force majeure</i> clauses, in particular, are frequently viewed as miscellaneous paragraphs not worthy of lengthy consideration or discussion. Unfortunately, the pitfalls of a failure to carefully negotiate the force majeure provision of a commercial lease are often realized when a true catastrophic event occurs. In such situations, the tenant may be least able to withstand any additional hardship and needs the protection that a well-drafted force majeure provision can afford. At the same time, owners of commercial real estate that have suffered through the recent catastrophic and tragic events such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and hurricanes Katrina and Rita unquestionably have learned all too well that the force majeure clauses of their leases may be the only means of ensuring invaluable protections if or when a catastrophic event does occur.
Measuring ROI for Marketing Efforts
May 30, 2006
Management guru and author Peter Drucker said, 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.' So why is it that so few law firms measure their marketing efforts? Why is it that so many Chief Marketing Officers (CMOs) who are getting hammered by partners to demonstrate ROI on their efforts can't do it?
The Absolute Priority Rule
May 30, 2006
Debtors in bankruptcy cases have long sought to make distributions to old equity without running afoul of the absolute priority rule. Time and again, debtors' efforts to leave old equity with value in a reorganized entity have been challenged in the appellate courts, and often in the Supreme Court. A proposed distribution to old equity in the complex Armstrong World Industries (AWI) case was struck down recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court. <i>In re Armstrong World Indus., Inc.</i>, 432 F.3d 507 (3rd Cir. 2005).
Post-Petition Enforcement
May 30, 2006
Generally speaking, after a bankruptcy filing, executory contracts are not enforceable against a debtor that has not yet assumed the contract. <i>N.L.R.B. v. Bildisco and Bildisco</i>, 465 U.S. 513, 531 (1984). However, the reverse is not true. During the pre-assumption period, the non-debtor party to the contract is presumed to be obligated to perform in accordance with a contract.
