At first glance, Stanziale v. MILK072011, looks like someone suing over a bad expiration date and conjures up images of Ron Burgundy proclaiming “milk was a bad choice.” But in actuality Stanziale is much more interesting: it answers whether one can breach their fiduciary duty by exposing an employer to a claim under the aptly-named WARN Act, which requires employers to tip off their workers to a possible job loss.
USA, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Mintz, Breach of contract, Fiduciary, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act 1988 (USA)
On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court held that under the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, the subjective intent of a secured party is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of a UCC-3 termination statement if the secured party authorized its filing.[1]
Background
USA, Delaware, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Alston & Bird LLP, Uniform Commercial Code (USA), Delaware Supreme Court, United States bankruptcy court