We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-5 of 5

Asset purchaser is subject to successor liability for FLSA judgment, despite specific disclaimer of liability

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2013

The purchaser of a going concern (a company in default of its loan and in receivership) specifically disclaimed liability for the $500,000 settlement

Court finds indirect upstream owner exercised de facto control, warrants liability for WARN Act notice violation

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 15 2012

A group of ex-employees initiated an adversary proceeding against the debtor and its indirect upstream owner seeking to hold the companies liable as a “single employer” for failure to comply with the notice provisions required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notice Act

Actual conflict of interest required to disqualify legal counsel under Section 327

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 19 2011

The lender, a creditor, objected to the plan trustee’s post-confirmation appointment of a special litigation and conflicts counsel, on the grounds that the law firm did not meet the “disinterested” requirement set forth in section 327 of the Bankruptcy Code

Applicant's prior bankruptcy permissible basis for refusal to hire in U.S. Third Circuit

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 28 2010

The United States Bankruptcy Code prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an existing employee because of a bankruptcy filing

Courts send mixed messages on WARN Act claims in bankruptcy

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 8 2009

As bankruptcy courts continue to play a key role in restructuring the U.S. economy, courts appear to be at odds as to whether WARN Act claims should proceed through adversary proceedings or through the bankruptcy claims process