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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 30

Parent corporate defendants exposed to liability in ERISA suit under veil-piercing theory

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2010

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied defendants’ motion to dismiss an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) complaint, ruling among other things that plaintiffs properly alleged facts to reach the corporate parent defendants on a theory of piercing the corporate veil

Executive’s responsibility for SEC filings may be grounds for rule 10b-5 liability

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 22 2008

A federal district court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action seeking civil penalties for claims that the defendant, the former President and COO of a public company, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company’s failure to disclose, among other things, the company’s practice of backdating stock options in its 2002 Form 10-K

Liability for late transfer of 401(k) contributions not a “unique” situation

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 23 2009

In Chao v. Unique Manufacturing Co., a federal district court determined that a business consultant brought in to run a distressed company was a fiduciary to the company’s 401(k) plan and liable for the failure to transfer employee 401(k) contributions to the plan

Seventh Circuit rules decisively for defendants in a “401(k) fee” case

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2009

On February 12, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in Hecker v. Deere & Co

Court refuses to lift PSLRA discovery stay

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 18 2008

Plaintiffs brought a shareholder derivative action, claiming the officers and directors of Asyst Technologies, Inc. (Asyst) violated federal and state securities law by backdating stock options and making false filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission

MetLife v. Glenn: Supreme Court cautions on conflicted fiduciaries deciding claims

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2008

On June 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn (“Glenn”

U.S. Supreme Court addresses conflicts of interest in deciding benefit claims

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2008

Sponsors and administrators of employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) should consider the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 19 decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, which has implications for plan administration and governance

District court dismisses ERISA claims based on alleged FLSA violation

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 5 2008

Plaintiffs, a group of infrastructure analysts employed by defendant, routinely worked over forty hours per week but were not paid overtime wages

Defense of Marriage Act ruling has multiple effects on benefit plans

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2013

On June 26, the US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional

Court holds employee stock option plan not a security

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 19 2009

Plaintiff brought an action against Coty Inc., his former employer, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, based on Coty’s purported misrepresentations regarding stock options granted to plaintiff under an employee benefit program