“Can I be personally liable?” Directors, officers, and managers of business entities frequently ask that question of their attorneys. A recent Delaware decision reveals an important area of potentially huge personally liability involving a sudden shutdown caused by insolvency.

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.

One week after Aegis Mortgage Corp. filed for chapter 11 in Delaware, a group of former employees filed their complaint seeking class certification over allegations that Aegis Mortgage Corporation, Aegis Wholesale Corporation and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.—all allegedly acting as their employer—violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act when they failed to give over 400 employees 60 days' notice prior to a mass termination by Aegis Mortgage on August 7, 2007.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 30, 2007, affirmed the dismissal of a lender liability class action brought by employees of a defunct originator and seller of mortgages and home equity loans. 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20791 (2d Cir. August 30, 2007). Agreeing with the district court, the Second Circuit held that the lender was not an "employer" within the meaning of the Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), and thus was not liable to the employees for the sudden loss of their jobs. Id., at *2.

In Henderson v. Powermate Holding Corp. (In re Powermate Holding Corp.)1, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware became the second bankruptcy court to address the status of WARN Act claims after the 2005 amendments to section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code.

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. While courts have come to differing conclusions on the issue, a commonality appears to be that generally courts will lean toward resolving WARN Act claims through whichever process is the most efficient in a particular case.

Layoffs often accompany corporate bankruptcy, and employers should be aware of the legal obligations that impact mass layoffs and plant closures. Most notably, the federal WARN Act requires employers to notify the workforce of a mass layoff, a temporary shutdown, or a closure of all or part of a business.

Employers that fail to provide adequate notice could be on the hook for damages of back pay and benefits-related compensation per employee for each day the company violated the WARN Act (up to 60 days).

A majority of today’s large Chapter 11 cases are structured as quick Section 363 sales of all the debtor’s assets followed by confirmation of a plan of liquidation, dismissal of the case, or a conversion to a Chapter 7. The purchaser in the sale is often one of the debtor’s prepetition secured or undersecured lenders, which may also act as the debtor-inpossession (DIP) lender and purchase the debtor’s assets through a credit bid, with no cash consideration.

On August 4, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc. (In re AE Liquidation, Inc.), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14359 (3d Cir.

In Czyzewski v. Sun Capital Partners, Inc.1, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed a Bankruptcy Court determination that a private equity firm was not liable for its subsidiary portfolio company’s failure to provide adequate notice of a plant closing under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).