Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Key Employee Retention under BAPCPA
In 2005, Congress purported to address the hot-button issue of executive compensation in bankruptcy by severely limiting Key Employee Retention Programs ('KERPs') that were then common in reorganization cases. These limitations on KERPs were set forth in Bankruptcy Code ' 503(c), added by the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the 'Act'). Although billed as a response to recent abuses of the bankruptcy system by executives of corporate giants like Enron Corporation, the amendment as drafted applied absent any Enron-type fraud or mismanagement, prompting concern that it would impede successful reorganizations by preventing necessary retention payments to debtors' executives. As post-Act case law shows, the Act in practice has not had the dramatic effect on executive compensation in bankruptcy that was perhaps intended. This is good news, however, for companies facing reorganization, which need to provide appropriate compensation to their employees in order to negotiate the difficult terrain of Chapter 11 and emerge successfully.
Background: Pre-Act Use of KERPs
Prior to the Act, KERPs were used routinely by debtors in Chapter 11 cases in an effort to retain key employees, principally senior management, who might otherwise seek employment at another, more financially stable, company. Underlying the widespread use of KERPs was the premise that the retention of knowledgeable and experienced personnel, particularly at senior levels, is often critical to enabling a troubled company to reorganize successfully, ultimately maximizing value to creditors. Although compensation packages varied from case to case depending on the debtor's needs, typical components of a KERP included: performance-based incentive bonuses; retention bonuses; success bonuses upon meeting bankruptcy benchmarks; discretionary bonuses for rank and file employees; severance benefits; and assumption of existing employment or severance agreements. Because no Bankruptcy Code provision specifically addressed KERPs, bankruptcy courts considered whether to approve a KERP against the standards for non-ordinary course use of property of the estate under ” 105(a), 363(b) and 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code: whether the program was fair and reasonable and within the debtor's sound business judgment. This standard afforded a debtor substantial flexibility in formulating a KERP.
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.
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.
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.
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?