Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Applicability Of The WARN Act To Law Firms
In addition to its obligations to its clients and creditors, a law firm partnership which is in dissolution, or about to merge or be sold, may have certain statutory obligations to its employees. In recent years there has been litigation surrounding whether the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), 29 U.S.C. '1201 et. seq., is applicable to partnerships, and in particular, law firm partnerships.
It is clear that WARN may be applicable to law firms when they dissolve and even when they are merged into other law firms or are bought or sold. WARN requires employers who are planning a “plant closing” or a “mass layoff” to give affected employees at least 60 days notice of such employment action. 20 C.F.R. '639.2.
A “plant closing” is the permanent or temporary shutdown of a single site of employment if the shutdown results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for 50 or more employees, excluding any part-time employees. 23 U.S.C. '2101(2). A “mass layoff” is a reduction in force which 1) is a not a plant closing; and 2) results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for 500 employees or at least 33% of the employees if at least 50 employees are affected. 23 U.S.C. '2101(3). (A 90-day rolling period will be used if, within that 90-day period, employee reductions occurred on more than one occasion and each such reduction affects fewer than the minimum number required to trigger the WARN Act notice requirement.)
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.