TOWNSQUARE MEDIA v. BRILL (July 21, 2011)
Summary
In a 24 page decision signed July 8, 2011, Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to for summary judgment, holding a non-debtor defendant liable with the Debtor as a single employer for alleged WARN Act violations. Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
Background
If you intend to enforce a judgement in Canada, you should know that the question of the US Court’s jurisdiction will likely be determined by the Canadian Court enforcing the judgement using its own test. The grounds on which the US Court took jurisdiction will carry little weight in the eyes of the Canadian enforcing Court.
Since July 2011, lenders have lived with great uncertainty as to their statutory rights, particularly their right to obtain possession of a secured property by way of summary proceedings. This uncertainty arose as a result of the 2011 High Court decision in Start Mortgages Limited & Ors v Gunn and Ors[1] (the “Start Mortgages Case”).
This update discusses an issue that may arise in relation to the recognition of foreign bankruptcies where the law of the receiving state does not provide for admittance proceedings. This issue recently arose in the Yukos proceedings.
Facts
The bankruptcy code prohibits an employer from discriminating against or terminating an employee for filing or having filed for bankruptcy protection. A federal court in Wisconsin has extended this retaliation protection to an employee who intended to file for bankruptcy (and later did so). In Robinette v.
David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, recently sent a letter to creditors of XY Magazine, warning that the creditors’ acquisition of personal information about the debtor’s subscribers and readers in contravention of the debtor’s privacy promises could violate the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”).
MATRIX IV, INC. v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO. OF CHICAGO (July 28, 2011)
The United States Supreme Court held that reckless violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) constitute a willful failure to comply, subjecting violators to liability for actual damages, statutory penalties and potentially punitive damages. Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. _____ (June 4, 2007).
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has granted another preliminary injunction ordering an excess directors and officers liability insurer to advance defense costs, despite the fact that the insurer had denied coverage on the basis of a prior knowledge exclusion and three of the insured entity's principals have pled guilty to various offenses, including violations of the securities laws. Murphy v. Allied World Assurance Co. (U.S.), Inc. (In re Refco, Inc.), No. 08-01133 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2008).