The 'Doctrine of Necessity'
April 26, 2004
Last month, we explained that a bankruptcy court lacks "either the statutory or equitable power to authorize" the debtor's payment of pre-bankruptcy nonpriority unsecured claims, as noted in <i>Capital Factors, Inc. v. Kmart Corp. (In re Kmart Corp.)</i> We explained that the clear, no-nonsense opinions of the district court and the Court of Appeals reversed four bankruptcy court orders, and we explained why the Seventh Circuit's <i>Kmart</i> decision is noteworthy. We went on to discuss the "Doctrine of Necessity" (the Doctrine), a current justification used by some bankrtupcy courts to permit the post-petition payment of certain assertedly "essential" pre-petition claims in Chapter 11 reoganized cases. This month, we discuss Principal Judicial Precedents, Decisions Favorable to the Doctrine, Cases Rejecting the Doctrine, and The Rebirth of the "Doctrine of Necessity."
Litigation
April 22, 2004
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Life Insurance and Divorce
April 22, 2004
Life Insurance is an important matter in most divorces. There are a host of issues that are not addressed in the typical negotiation. Consider the following sample insurance clause from a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA): <i>The husband shall maintain life insurance for the wife having an aggregate death benefit of $250,000. Said obligation shall be terminated if the husband's obligation to pay alimony is modified/terminated. The husband shall maintain life insurance having an aggregate death benefit of $250,000 for the benefit of the unemancipated children. Said benefit shall be reduced by $75,000 upon the emancipation of the first child and again upon the emancipation of the second child. The obligation to maintain any life insurance for the children shall terminate upon the emancipation of all Three (3) children.</i>
One-Way Age Discrimination
April 07, 2004
Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protect an employee regardless of his or her age, once that employee turns 40? The EEOC's regulation provides that it does, stating that the ADEA works both ways once someone reaches protected status at age 40. Finding this regulation "clearly wrong," the Supreme Court recently held in <i>General Dymanics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline</i>, 124 S. Ct. 1236 (2004), that the ADEA does not protect younger employees who are treated less favorably than older employees.
Insurer Must Cover Weekend Accident
April 07, 2004
An umbrella insurance policy that covers a company's employees while "acting within their duties" should cover a worker who drove out of town on a weekend in search of a company cell phone he'd lost -- even if he stopped for personal errands on the way home, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.
'Stop, Drop and Roll'
April 07, 2004
Since the Supreme Court's decision in <i>McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ. Co.</i> 513 U.S. 352 (1995), authorizing employers to contest back pay and front pay/reinstatement remedies if they acquire evidence during discovery that would have led to the plaintiff's termination irrespective of the disputed reason, employers have expanded the reach of their discovery efforts. The purpose: Find anything in the employee's background that the employer can argue would have led to the employee's termination anyway, thereby precluding the potentially costly remedies of back pay and front pay/reinstatement per the <i>McKennon</i> decision. This article posits some possible countermeasures for plaintiffs to employ in combating the "after-acquired evidence" defense.
A Trade Secret By Any Other Name is Still a Trade Secret: Why UTSA Pre-emption Matters
April 01, 2004
Trade secret plaintiffs sometimes couch their claims under other, alternative titles, such as "common law misappropriation," "unfair competition," or "breach of confidence." The tactic is often a deliberate ploy to avoid complying with state Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) statutes and case law governing trade secret litigation — a body of law that favors former employees in many respects.
Can a Custodial Parent Be Forbidden to Relocate?
March 04, 2004
Parents in Georgia may need to reconsider moving out of state, or they could risk losing custody of their children. The Nov. 10, 2003 decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia in <i>Bodne v. Bodne</i>, 588 S.E.2d 728 (2003) (Benham, J., dissenting) has overruled or otherwise affected nearly 100 years of child custody law, and it has rescinded the well-established presumption that custodial parents have a <i>prima facie</i> right to retain custody.
