Grabbing the Headlines
No sexual harassment case has received as much attention in the press recently as the one brought against Fox News and television host Bill O'Reilly by former Fox producer Andrea Mackris. This case grabbed the headlines with almost as much fervor as did Anita Hill's claims against then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas in 1994, which had previously been the most notorious of sexual harassment claims. The Mackris/O'Reilly case has frequently been compared with the Hill/Thomas case -- not only because of the cases' relative notoriety, but also because they involve similar allegations: that a subordinate employee was subject to verbal harassment.
What Happens to Chapter 11 Cases?
This Special Edition of <i>The Bankruptcy Strategist</i> is devoted entirely to the recently enacted "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005," which makes the most sweeping changes to the Bankruptcy Code seen in the last 20 years (although the law does nothing to address some significant issues that have been much debated, such as asbestos, forum shopping, and pension liability). The legislation primarily takes aim at perceived consumer bankruptcy abuses, but will also affect numerous aspects of business bankruptcy practice. This article analyzes key changes to the Bankruptcy Code that will be important to most business bankruptcy participants. Other articles in this issue address in detail the changes related to cross-border insolvencies, executory contracts, financial contracts, investment bankers, and plan exclusivity. Neither we nor the other contributors to this edition have attempted to address the substantial changes affecting only individuals who file for Chapter 11 relief, or changes to the special provisions for "small business" and "single asset real estate" debtors, as those terms are defined in the Code.
Big Investment Banks Win Big in Congress
The major investment banks secured a big win with the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the Act). They quietly convinced Congress to remove the strongest limitation in the Bankruptcy Code (' 101(14)) on a Chapter 11 debtor's employment of an investment banker. That prohibition, in effect since the Depression, had essentially prevented the debtor's retention of a banker for any of the debtor's outstanding securities The securities industry called the statutory ban "anti-competitive."
Litigation
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Employment Legislation Update
Employers that obtain credit reports or conduct background checks on applicants or current employees must be aware of recent changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and amendments made to FCRA by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA). FCRA imposes obligations on employers who procure "consumer reports" (defined to include information bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics and mode of living) and/or "investigative consumer credit reports" (which include information obtained from personal interviews with neighbors, friends or associates) from a third-party consumer reporting agency for an employment purpose -- including hiring decisions and evaluations of employees for promotion, reassignment or retention. Employers that fail to comply with FCRA's obligations risk civil liability, federal agency action, and possible corresponding state action.
How to Avoid Class Litigation
In the past year, large settlements of "pattern or practice" employment discrimination claims against several major companies, and the largest civil rights class action suit in American history against Wal-Mart Stores, have prompted questions about what employers can do to avoid being the next target. This article lists key indicators in determining whether a company is in danger of class litigation.
Ruling May Increase Age Bias Suits
Federal courts most likely will see an increase in age discrimination cases with so-called disparate impact claims, but employers will be able defend themselves successfully in many of them as a result of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. The High Court on March 30 held that disparate impact claims -- those that allege that a facially neutral policy adversely affects a protected class -- can be brought under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). <i>Smith v. City of Jackson<i>, No. 03-1160.
