Key Employee Compensation Alternatives
Many companies struggle with how to best compensate and incentivize their key employees. Salary and short-term bonuses alone may not be sufficient. Many key employees seek to be rewarded for their long-term efforts and to share in any increase in value of the company. Andy Jacobs takes a look at the most common means adopted by companies in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
Sixth Circuit Identifies “Dilemma,” but Not Solution for Calculating Workers’ Vehicle Expenses Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
In an opinion that raises as many questions as it answers, the Sixth Circuit foreclosed two methods of calculating how delivery drivers paid the minimum wage should be reimbursed for the costs associated with using their vehicles for work under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Rejecting both the drivers’ assertion that they should be reimbursed using the mileage rate published by the IRS, and the employers’ argument that drivers should receive a “reasonable approximation” of their costs, the Sixth Circuit held in two consolidated appeals in Parker v. Battle Creek Pizza, Inc., Nos. 22-2119, 22-3561, 2024 WL 1068871 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024), that drivers’ actual costs must be reimbursed to avoid a minimum wage violation and remanded both cases to their respective district courts with little guidance as to how to calculate those costs. Robin McGuffin and Harlee Havens take a close look at the ruling in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
Sixth Circuit Applies Updated Arbitration Waiver Standard
In a published opinion issued on March 27, 2024, the Sixth Circuit applied for the first time the waiver standard announced in the Supreme Court’s 2022 opinion, Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022), in affirming the denial of a motion to compel arbitration due to the defendant’s extensive participation in the litigation.
Significant Bankruptcy Issue Pending Before U.S. Supreme Court
In December 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., Case No. 23-124. Purdue Pharma is the drug manufacturer of the prescription opioid, OxyContin, an alleged contributor to a major public health crisis involving loss of life due to overdose. Chrisandrea Turner takes a look at the case in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
Retirement Plans: How to Guard Against Fiduciary Liability
In recent years, we have seen more and more ERISA class action claims against retirement plan sponsors and committees for breach of fiduciary duty. In the past, such claims were generally only made against very large plans but we are starting to see claims against smaller plans. The primary allegation is often that the fiduciaries failed to seek the lowest fees available or put another way the fiduciaries were “asleep at the wheel.” By one report, 463 lawsuits have been filed over the last eight years claiming fiduciaries failed to obtain the lowest available fees. Lexington office attorney Andy Jacobs takes a look at the issues in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
Is That Tattoo Infringing? The Complicated Copyright Questions Surrounding Tattoos
Tattoos have been at the core of several copyright cases over the last few years. One of the earliest well-known examples was a suit by Mike Tyson’s tattoo artist over the use of Tyson’s face tattoo design in the movie The Hangover Part II, which settled out of court in 2011. However, several more recently undecided cases have raised issues tied to tattoos and copyright infringement. TJ Mihill takes a look at this issue in the latest Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
Easy Come, Easy Go: Delaware Court Upends Elon Musk’s $56 Billion Equity Incentive Plan
An extraordinary performance-based stock option plan (the “Grant”) awarded by Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) to Elon Musk (“Musk”) was invalidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery last week, despite the fact that over 70% of Tesla’s disinterested stockholders approved it at a 2018 special meeting. Attorney Brian Cromer takes a look at the decision in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
USPTO Issues Enablement Guidelines Following Amgen v. Sanofi
On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released Guidelines for Assessing Enablement in Utility Applications and Patents in View of the Supreme Court Decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al. The Guidelines are intended to inform U.S. patent examiners and the public about the process to be followed when assessing whether a claim satisfies the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), after the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Amgen v. Sanofi. IP attorney Patrick Torre takes a look at the guidelines in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.