Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employment Law Considerations In Bankruptcy
COVID-19 continues to impact businesses, both large and small. As a result, many companies must face the unfortunate reality of shutting down operations or filing for bankruptcy protection. When considering any change in operational status, businesses are well-advised to consider present and future liabilities, including potential exposure under applicable labor and employment laws. This article addresses some of the relevant employment laws and litigation vulnerabilities that companies, including their owners, officers and directors, should consider before ceasing operations or filing for bankruptcy.
Ceasing Operations
A Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing results in layoffs and the liquidation of all business assets in order to pay creditors. Important for Chapter 7 filers: employment litigation claims are often unsecured and unliquidated debt capable of discharge. However, this comes at a cost, as Chapter 7 traditionally results in the termination of operations and closure of the business.
By contrast, Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows for management to continue business operations and attempt restructuring. In this context, unpaid employer contributions to sponsored benefit plans and a limited amount of employee wages, salaries, and paid time off receive priority over unsecured debts. Moreover, the business debtor customarily is granted first day motions to use cash collateral, obtain new financing and immediately pay employees their wage-related priority claims. In some circumstances, bankruptcy also allows management to approve structured bonus plans to incentivize employees to remain with the company through either a sale or restructuring. Additionally, 11 U.S.C. §503(c)(1) provides that Chapter 11 petitioners may, with court approval, make qualified distribution payments to "Key Employee Incentive and Retention Plans."
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.