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
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. Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC, 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 Case
Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) designed, manufactured, and sold outboard motors at 13 facilities in multiple states until December 2000, when it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. When OMC declared bankruptcy, it shut down all 13 of its facilities “virtually on Christmas Eve,” with no notice to the 6500 employees who were laid off as a result of the shutdowns. Under the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. ' 2101 et seq., an entity employing more than 100 employees must provide 60 days' notice (or pay in lieu of notice) before mass layoffs or plant closings in order to allow affected employees transition time to arrange for other employment without a loss of pay. The enforcement provisions of the WARN Act allow employees who are terminated without notice to recover damages equal to 60 days' pay and fringe benefits from their employer.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?