|Executive Compensation||Loyalty||Business Issues|
Restrictive Covenants (state-by-state guide)
Shareholder Litigation (vs corp directors)
NEW: for executives who may be leaving a position or starting a new one, see this site.
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER
This site provides general information for educational purposes, is not intended either to provide legal advice or to be relied upon in any way. There is no substitute for personal legal counsel about your particular situation. This site is not affiliated with any law firm, and merely provides the views of Mark Poerio in his individual capacity.
>>> See Disclaimer for all rules of usage for this site.
Notable Developments as of 2019.01.22
2019.01.22 Tax-exempt Orgs: Watch your 457(f) Plan!!! If you have ever heard of golden parachutes, you likely think of change-in-control payments made by for-profit companies. Tax-exempt organizations had better pay attention to that term because they could trigger a 21% excise tax if . . . continued at 457(f) plans and Code Section 4960.
2018.12.30 Director Compensation Storm Ahead - Brace for Litigation. It is always risky to be an outlier in executive compensation matters, but the risk is likely to become acute in 2019 for companies that fail to plan correctly in response to ... continued at Director Compensation.
2018.12.17 No Enforcement of Non-compete; No damages for breach (CT law). It is generally smart for executives to narrow the scope of non-competes and non-solicits not only to the scope of their work but also to those with whom they have interacted. That tipped the scales away from a former employer in Henkel v. Bell (ED Mich), which sets forth some instructive non-compete language. For a copy of the decision, and further information, see Connecticut.
2018.12.05 Asset Purchasers Beware - Constructive Notice of Union Pension Plan Liability. A recent 9th Circuit decision called out a common misconception -- in the form of "incorrect legal advice" that the buyer received prior to closing -- that "[a]bsent an express assumption of liability, the Buyer does not assume the [withdrawal] liability." The decision went on to hold a private equity fund liable for $480,000 of withdrawal liability, even though all parties conceded that the purchaser had no actual notice of the liability. Unfortunately for the buyer . . . continued atPension Liabilities.
2018.11.30 GM Layoffs and a Smart Two-step RIF Strategy. It is never easy to downsize a workforce. The best companies aim to combine a considerate exit for those who leave, with morale-building incentives for those who remain. What better way to start than GM just announced . . . continued at Two-step RIFs.
Notable Updates in 2018:
Copyright © Joseph Poerio. All rights reserved.