Investors May Be Liable to WARN Act Plaintiffs
March 02, 2004
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. <i>Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC</i>, 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.
What Private Companies Need to Know About Sarbanes-Oxley
March 02, 2004
Sarbanes-Oxley" and "public company" are so often spoken in the same breath that one can easily forget the implications of the new statute for organizations that are not publicly held. Those implications may be profound and may appear in many different guises, some of which are outlined below. One deserves particular attention: Sarbanes-Oxley will expand dramatically the protections afforded by law to whistleblowers employed by private companies who allege retaliatory discharge or reprisal in the terms of their employment.
Internal Control Reports: The Next New Thing
March 02, 2004
Many public companies have already begun to prepare for compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Act). Management and directors may not be clear on the framework for Section 404. Although Section 404 does not require disclosure in Annual Reports for the calendar year-end 2003, requisite lead times suggest that by now companies must be working diligently on compliance planning.
Digital Stealth Secrets and the Act
March 02, 2004
Corporate accountability (Section 302, 404 and 409 of SOA) has moved to priority status for most businesses. This article has as its core just one premise: understanding the risks associated with digital stealth fraud in the workplace, and what it can do to your company.
Critical Ruling on Compensation from Supreme Court
March 02, 2004
The Supreme Court has held that Bankruptcy Code Section 330(a)(1) does not allow a Chapter 7 debtor's attorney to be compensated from the estate unless the attorney is employed by the Trustee with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. Lamie v. United States Trustee, 2000 WL 110846 (U.S. 2004). This decision conclusively ends the controversy over the 1994 amendments to that Section, and puts Chapter 7 debtors' counsel on notice that, if not retained pursuant to Section 327, they are on their own with respect to fees.
What Should You Know About the Rules of Evidence?
March 02, 2004
In last month's issue, we discussed the fact that bankruptcy lawyers may think they do not have to worry about the rules of evidence ' and we then went on to prove otherwise. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to most issues that arise in bankruptcy cases, according to Rule 9017 of the Federal rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. We discussed two of the four useful subjects under these rules: attorney-client privilege, and attorney work-product doctrine. Part Two of this article, below, discusses settlement offers and affidavits.
Secret Liens: Can They Really Have Super-Priority Status?
March 02, 2004
In the restructuring world certain constants exist: The Bankruptcy Code (Code) has not dramatically changed since 1978, a Chapter 7 corporate debtor cannot receive a discharge, and exemptions are defined to the penny. But be wary -- there are unknown pitfalls out there. State governments, to appear responsive to local issues caused by distressed businesses, have increasingly enacted laws that spring "secret liens" or other penalties on debtors. Although bankruptcy practitioners may instinctively deride such laws as subordinate to the federal Code, recent federal opinions disagree.
