Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Overview of Limitations on Employee Compensation in Bankruptcy
The filing of a bankruptcy case by a company creates substantial uncertainty for its employees. This uncertainty can translate into employee departures, lack of focus on the business, and diminution in the value of the company. Recognizing these potential consequences, companies in Chapter 11 bankruptcy often try to reduce employee uncertainty by seeking authority from the bankruptcy court to: 1) honor unpaid compensation and benefit obligations to employees; 2) continue severance and benefit plans post-bankruptcy; and/or 3) continue existing bonus programs or establish retention or new incentive programs for employees.
The Bankruptcy Code, however, imposes a variety of limitations on the ability of a debtor-employer to provide certain types of compensation and benefits to "insiders," a term that is broadly defined in the Bankruptcy Code. Moreover, as a general matter, compensation and benefits paid to insiders by a debtor company are closely scrutinized, and incentive programs for insiders often become a focal point for disputes between a company, its creditors, and the United States Trustee. This article, which focuses primarily on Delaware law, provides a high-level summary of several common issues that often arise in bankruptcy related to insider compensation and benefits.
Who Is an Insider?
Under section 101(31) of the Bankruptcy Code, an "insider" of a corporation includes, but is not limited to: a) a "director of the debtor;" b) an "officer of the debtor;" c) a "person in control of the debtor;" d) a "partnership in which the debtor is a general partner;" e) a "general partner of the debtor;" f) a "relative of a general partner, director, officer, or person in control of the debtor;" or g) any "affiliate, or insider of an affiliate as if such affiliate were the debtor." 11 U.S.C. §101(31)(B) & (E). Thus, courts will consider titles, relationships, and general ability to "control" a debtor (as discussed below) in determining whether an individual constitutes an insider. Importantly, individuals who are named officers or directors of a debtor — including named officers or directors of defunct or shell subsidiaries of a debtor — should be wary that, based on such titles, courts may consider them presumptively insiders of the debtor under section 101(31). See, In re Foothills Texas, Inc., 408 B.R. 573, 579 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) ("Just as there may be non-statutory insiders that fall within the definition of an insider but are outside of the enumerated categories, there may be persons that fall within the enumerated categories but do not meet the definition of the category …. In order to overcome the presumption that a person holding an officer's title is not what he or she appears to be requires submission of evidence sufficient to establish that the officer is, in fact, not participating in the management of the debtor.").
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
Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
From DeepSeek to Distillation: Protecting IP In An AI World
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.