Source: https://www.defenselitigationinsider.com/commercial-litigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:35:47+00:00

Document:
On December 22, 2017 President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (officially Public Law no. 115-97, named “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018”). Recognized generally for changes to the individual income tax brackets, the corporate tax cuts, and the estate tax modification, a separate section, 13307, likely will have a significant impact on sexual harassment settlements.
Senator Bob Menendez (D- NJ) proposed the Weinstein tax exclusion (above) in direct response to the #MeToo movement after the sexual harassment revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The provision was added to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to restrict tax deductibility of sexual harassment settlements associated with nondisclosure agreements. Such agreements were reported in connection with Harvey Weinstein, Fox News, and other high profile cases.
Section 13307 modified the IRS Tax Code section 162 to eliminate the ability of businesses and defendants (and possibly plaintiffs) to deduct the costs associated with settlements of sexual harassment claims that are subject to nondisclosure agreements, including legal fees related to the settlements. Because most settlements related to sexual harassment have included confidentiality or nondisclosure language, the impact of this legislation will be significant for all parties involved, and will be reflected in advice from legal counsel. The provision applies to any payments made on or after December 22, 2017 and is not retroactive, except to the extent it affects payments left to be paid after December 22, 2017 on any prior settlement agreement.
• An employment dispute that does not involve claims of sexual harassment but results in a nondisclosure agreement that includes broad releases may be problematic. If the scope of the releases includes sexual harassment claims, can that settlement be deducted by the business?
• What if a plaintiff has multiple claims, including but not limited to retaliation, gender discrimination, and a sexual harassment claim; what portions of a settlement payment will be deductible? Could effective contract drafting allocate most of the settlement consideration to the non-sexual harassment claims and thereby affect deductibility?
• In settling multiple claims, should counsel draft two separate agreements, one dealing only with the sexual harassment claim and the other agreement with all remaining claims, and allocating the larger portion of the settlement consideration to the nonsexual harassment claim, which is deductible?
• Does the statute exclude all legal fees associated with the claim from deduction, or just the portion of fees associated with the negotiation of the settlement and the drafting and execution of a settlement agreement?
The Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts invalidated a contractual forum selection clause and dismissed an employer’s action to enforce a noncompetition agreement signed by a former employee, because the employer forced a Massachusetts forum upon a California employee in order to circumvent California public policy against the enforcement of noncompetition agreements.
Plaintiff-employer Oxford Global Resources, LLC (“Oxford”), a recruiting and staffing company specializing in placement of information technology contractors to businesses, hired defendant-employee Hernandez to an entry-level position as an account manager. When hired, Hernandez had to sign an offer letter and a separate “protective covenants agreement” which contained confidentiality, noncompetition, and non-solicitation provisions. The agreement also contained a forum selection clause requiring that any lawsuit arising from the agreement be brought in Massachusetts, and a choice-of-law provision providing for the application of Massachusetts law to the agreement.
Oxford hired Hernandez to work in its Campbell, California, office. Hernandez interviewed for the position in California; signed the offer letter and agreement in California; was trained by Oxford in California; conducted all of his work for Oxford in California; and reported to Oxford supervisors who were located in California. Indeed, the Court found that all relevant events and all of Oxford’s alleged injuries occurred in California. The only connection to Massachusetts, the Court noted, was Oxford’s allegation that its principle place of business was there.
Oxford sued Hernandez in Massachusetts alleging that Hernandez used information regarding the identity of Oxford’s customers to solicit those customers on behalf of a competitor in California. Hernandez moved to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which permits dismissal when “the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum.” Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 223A, § 5. Despite the forum selection clause, Hernandez prevailed and the Court dismissed the action in order for it to be heard in a California court.
The Court engaged in a three-step analysis leading to dismissal. First, it determined that California law governed the agreement despite the choice-of-law provision favoring Massachusetts law because the agreement was an improper contract of adhesion since Hernandez did not have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate it. Oxford’s offer to Hernandez was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, no negotiation of the agreement’s terms took place, and Hernandez had no bargaining power as an entry-level employee with no previous experience in the industry. The Court discounted the agreement’s boilerplate language that Hernandez had the opportunity to consult a lawyer and that he was not under duress as insufficient to overcome the disparity in bargaining power between the parties.
Under Delaware law, when a derivative plaintiff loses its stockholder status as the result of a merger, the plaintiff usually also loses its standing to pursue a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation. This rule is subject to only two limited exceptions: (1) when “the merger itself is the subject of a claim of fraud, being perpetrated merely to deprive shareholders of the standing to bring a derivative action,” and (2) when “the merger is in reality merely a reorganization which does not affect plaintiff’s ownership in the business enterprise.” Lewis v. Ward, 852 A.2d 896, 902 (Del. 2004) (clarifying exceptions identified in Lewis v. Anderson, 477 A.2d 1040 (Del. 1984)). In a decision revisiting a 2010 mining tragedy in which dozens of miners were killed, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently concluded that neither exception applied to preserve the standing of stockholders of Massey Energy Company (“Massey”) to bring derivative claims, and that plaintiffs had not brought direct claims for an “inseparable fraud.” In re Massey Energy Co. Derivative & Class Action Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 5430-CB (May 4, 2017).
In 2011, stockholder plaintiffs attempting to enjoin a merger between Massey and Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. (“Alpha”) argued that Massey should be forced to assume and transfer derivative claims against certain Massey fiduciaries to a trust for the benefit of Massey stockholders, rather than allowing the claims to pass to Alpha. While finding “little doubt” that plaintiffs’ derivative claims could survive a motion to dismiss, the Court also concluded that plaintiffs were likely to lose standing to pursue those claims if the merger was consummated.
On February 28, 2017, the Missouri Supreme Court joined a growing list of tribunals to apply a strict reading of the United States Supreme Court’s seminal ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). In State ex rel. Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Hon. Colleen Dolan, No. SC95514, the Missouri Supreme Court held that Missouri courts lack the requisite personal jurisdiction, either specific or general, over a non-resident defendant, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, in a claim brought by a non-resident plaintiff who asserted a Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA) violation arising from his employment by Norfolk Southern in the State of Indiana. The ruling marks a significant victory for corporate defendants seeking to combat forum shopping by plaintiffs, the practice of bringing cases in jurisdictions which are more likely to provide a favorable judgment or a more lucrative verdict.
The plaintiff, Indiana resident Russell Parker, argued that Missouri courts had both general and specific jurisdiction over Norfolk based on the company’s contacts with the state. Specifically, the plaintiff cited Norfolk’s ownership of approximately 400 miles of railroad track in the state, 590 employees in the state, and approximately $232,000,000 in annual revenue from the company’s operations in Missouri. As grounds for its decision, the court found that the plaintiff’s allegations did not arise from or relate to Norfolk’s activities in Missouri so as to give rise to specific jurisdiction, nor were Norfolk’s operations in the State sufficient to give rise to a Missouri court’s exercise of general jurisdiction over a defendant such as Norfolk; a company incorporated in and with principal place of business in Virginia.
Citing the Second Circuit’s decision in Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619, 627-30 (2d Cir. 2016), wherein .05 percent of the defendant’s employees and no more than .107 percent of total revenue were derived from the defendant’s activities in the state of Connecticut, the Missouri Supreme Court concluded that Norfolk’s activity in Missouri represents “a tiny portion” of the company’s business activities nationwide. Specifically, the court noted that the revenue derived from Missouri is approximately 2 percent of Norfolk’s total revenues; the tracks owned and operated in Missouri constitute approximately 2 percent of the tracks Norfolk owns and operates nationally; and the company’s Missouri-based employees account for only about 2 percent of its total employees.

References: § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.