Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-6 of 6
Claims for corporate indemnification and piercing the corporate veil not mutually exclusive
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 26 2012
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court decision holding that a plaintiff could not simultaneously seek indemnification from his corporate employer and also seek to pierce that corporation’s veil
Delaware Chancery Court holds that former employees are not indispensible parties to litigation
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- July 27 2012
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware recently rejected an effort to dismiss an unfair competition employee raiding lawsuit against a Delaware corporation on the theory that the departing employees, who were not named as defendants, were indispensible parties to the action
Member of LLC not an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 9 2012
In the first Federal appellate decision to address the issue head on, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last week held that an individual is not personally liable as an “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) merely by their status as an LLC member
Fiduciary duty claim survives against non-officer
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 17 2010
A federal court in Kentucky recently ruled that a former manager at a medical device manufacturer could be liable for breach of fiduciary duty for planning to start a rival business while working at the company despite not serving as either an officer or director of the firm
Third Circuit holds that non-compete clauses survive a change in corporate ownership
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 29 2010
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a non-compete clause is enforceable by a corporation after it has undergone “a substantial change in stock ownership.”
SEC, district court approve company’s exclusion of shareholder policy proposal
- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- May 2 2008
On April 22, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that Apache Corporation could, pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, reject the inclusion in its proxy statement of a shareholder proposal prohibiting the company from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity
Current Search
- Workarea - Litigation
- Workarea - Company & Commercial
- Workarea - Employment & Labor
- Firm Name - Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP