Category: Business Law

Common Types of Business Lawsuits

By ,

According to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), up to one-half of all businesses are likely to be sued in any given year and practically all businesses are the subject of a lawsuit at some point during their existence. Lawsuits can be very costly on several levels, especially to small business owners. Litigation can cause both emotional and financial hardship. It may also force a business to change the way it operates. Business owners can save time and money, and potentially avoid lawsuits, by becoming familiar with the types of business lawsuits and reaching out to a qualified attorney if they become the target of litigation. The SBA groups business lawsuits into the following categories:

  • Employee
  • Customer
  • Business-specific

Some lawsuits do not fit neatly into these categories, such as personal injury claims arising from auto accidents. When an employee gets into an accident while driving a company vehicle, a commercial auto insurance policy will likely cover the costs.

Lawsuits Filed by Employees

Lawsuits filed by employees can be expensive and oftentimes command attention from the press. In one 15-year period alone, Merrill Lynch paid nearly half a billion dollars to settle sexual harassment and racial discrimination claims. Lawsuits filed by employees may include the following:

  • Claims of discrimination due to age, race, sex, religion, gender identity, or disability
  • Harassment claims, including bullying and sexual harassment
  • Whistleblower claims
  • Wrongful termination
  • Breach of contract
  • Minimum wage complaints, denial of overtime pay, or other complaints involving misclassification

Many employee lawsuits can be avoided by hiring a qualified employment lawyer to assist in drafting policies and employee handbooks, as well as reviewing employee contracts. Employers can also take steps to create a company culture that does not enable sexual harassment in the workplace.

Lawsuits Filed by Customers

Lawsuits filed by customers tend to fall into three categories: premises liability, discrimination, and customer satisfaction. Premises liability lawsuits include slip-and-fall accidents, such as when a customer in a grocery store slips on a wet floor and sustains an injury. Premises liability lawsuits may also involve situations in which the business failed to provide adequate lighting, security cameras, or locks, which resulted in an injury sustained by a customer or other third party. If a business refuses to provide service to a customer because of their sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, or disability, that business may be the target of a discrimination lawsuit.

Customer satisfaction lawsuits typically focus on consumer rights. Customers may allege that they did not get what they paid for, or that the business violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) or other consumer-related regulation. In general, a small business may be able to avoid customer satisfaction litigation by reimbursing the customer for the product in question or providing additional services at no charge. In most cases, it costs business owners less to satisfy the customer rather than proceed with litigation, even if they know they customer may be wrong.

Lawsuits Involving Other Businesses

Suppliers, vendors, and competing businesses may file lawsuits involving breach of contract or intellectual property rights. Breach of contract essentially means that the business failed to adhere to the terms of the contact they signed. According to the SBA, approximately one-third of all litigation involving small businesses concerns breach of contract. Breach of contract may take many forms, which include the following:

  • Delivering damaged goods
  • Failing to pay for goods
  • Failing to deliver goods
  • Revealing trade secrets

Issues involving intellectual property rights may also arise with competing businesses. Another firm may claim that their company’s logo, image, or slogan was copied. Within the high-tech industry, lawsuits involving trade secrets are not uncommon.

Cost of Business Lawsuits

According to the SBA, legal costs for small businesses typically range around $10,000 but can easily exceed $150,000. Large companies may pay higher fees. However, the real cost to small businesses is the emotional hardship and upheaval caused to their future operations. Seeking the advice of skilled legal counsel can help businesses avoid these catastrophes.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Business Owners Facing Litigation

If you are a business owner facing a lawsuit, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are always available to advise your business regarding the best course of action when you face legal challenges. We can help you stay focused on running your business while we handle your legal matters. Whether you have a pressing legal challenge now or are looking for skilled counsel to avoid lawsuits in the future, please reach out to our staff by calling 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Why Should I Avoid Copying Another Business’s Contract Language?  

By ,

Every business should have a contract, often called Terms of Use or Privacy Policy, that is specific to their company, and includes detailed information about the parties involved, the goods or services that are being exchanged, and the details of the agreement. Start-up companies or entrepreneurs who are building a business may be tempted to use language from another company’s contract to avoid paying a lawyer to draft a new contract. Tempting as this may be, there are a number of reasons why this is highly discouraged. The cost of hiring a lawyer to generate a business contract will save you money in the long run and protect your company from lawsuits or regulatory investigations.

Reasons Why Copying a Contract is Discouraged

  • Bad Publicity: Negative media attention can be very damaging to a small company. Depending on how small the company is, it may not survive the bad publicity. A company can run into trouble if the contract they copied was drafted to comply with laws from another jurisdiction. In addition, it could be out of date or include protections for goods or services that are different from those provided by your company. This could leave the company vulnerable to lawsuits.
  • It could scare off investors: Potential investors may walk away if they find out that your company is involved in a lawsuit or is being investigated by state or federal regulators.
  • A strong contract distinguishes you from the competition: The terms and conditions of a contract should reflect the company’s mission and values. It does not need to contain complicated legal jargon. In fact, the best contracts are easy to read and understand, legally accurate, and on brand.
  • Copying a contract is illegal. Copying another company’s contract without their permission is a violation of copyright law. It also sets an example within the company that it is acceptable to break the rules.
  • The company’s entire user agreement could be invalidated. If it is discovered that a company copied another company’s legal contract, it could invalidate the contract and leave the company vulnerable to steep fines, class action lawsuits, and put the future of the organization at risk.

There are contract templates available online. However, they are often written by individuals who do not have a legal degree and are unqualified to write a business contract. Therefore, it is highly discouraged to go this route. Invest the time and money in hiring a business lawyer to draft a legal contract for your company.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with Business Contracts

If you are starting up a new company, or you require assistance with important legal documents for your existing company, do not hesitate to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We have extensive experience in drafting business contracts that are concise, legally accurate, and reflect your company’s brand and mission. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Terminating a wedding contract in Pennsylvania due to COVID-19 & Coronavirus

By ,

Many couples and venues are having to postpone or even cancel wedding plans because of the effects of the novel Coronavirus on travel, events, and socialization. The starting point for determining your rights would be to look to the contract’s language, which may contain a force majeure or “act of god” clause. Such a clause may explicitly excuse the performance of a wedding venue or vendor, or excuse the bride and groom from the payment terms of the contract. The precise language of the force majeure clause is most important, as it may be read to unambiguously include or exclude events such as COVID-19.  Moreover, there have been legislative efforts to enact laws that would mandate the application of any force majeure clause to apply to the pandemic. To date, state and local governments in Pennsylvania have not enacted such laws.

If the wedding-related contract in question does not include a force majeure clause, or if the clause uses vague language that may not ultimately cover the COVID-19 pandemic, Pennsylvania recognizes two common law doctrines that may be of use: frustration and impossibility.

The doctrine of impossibility applies in the event that a party’s performance was made impracticable through no fault of his own by an unforeseeable event, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of both parties at the time of agreement. Performance will be excused, unless language or circumstances point otherwise. Pennsylvania’s definition of “impossibility” requires strict impracticability. As such, mere unanticipated difficulty is not likely to excuse performance.

Pennsylvania’s frustration of purpose doctrine protects excuses performance even if it is still possible so long as the event substantially frustrates a party’s principal purpose. Additional requirements are the assumption by both parties that the event would not occur and no fault on behalf of the party asserting the application. The ultimate question for frustration is whether the unforeseeable event significantly altered the circumstances of the agreement such that performance would no longer fulfil any aspect of its original purpose.

If you have concerns about how the COVID-19 will impact a wedding contract, the lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can assist you with these matters. To schedule an initial consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law, Coronavirus
  Comments: Comments Off on Terminating a wedding contract in Pennsylvania due to COVID-19 & Coronavirus
  Other posts by

Applying Pennsylvania Law to Contracts without Force Majeure clauses during COVID-19

By ,

There are many questions being raised about whether parties are required to perform under contracts during the COVID-19 health crisis. In some cases, government shutdowns have made performance impossible, and in other cases, health concerns have made performance unwise and impractical.  A force majeure clause is a provision in an agreement that excuses a party from performance if an unforeseeable event arises. This type of clause is also commonly referred to as an “act of god” provision and it is a common starting point for a legal analysis of whether performance will be required due to concerns over COVID-19.  However, what happens if your contract does not contain a force majeure clause?

If your contract is governed by Pennsylvania law, then the courts will likely look to common law, including the doctrine of impossibility and the frustration of purpose doctrine. The doctrine of impossibility applies in the event that a party’s performance was made impracticable through no fault of his own by an unforeseeable event, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of both parties at the time of agreement. Performance will be excused, unless language or circumstances point otherwise. Pennsylvania’s definition of “impossibility” requires strict impracticability. As such, mere unanticipated difficulty is not likely to excuse performance.  Pennsylvania’s frustration of purpose doctrine excuses performance even if it is still possible so long as the event substantially frustrates a party’s principal purpose. Additional requirements are the assumption by both parties that the event would not occur and no fault on behalf of the party asserting the application. The ultimate question for frustration is whether the unforeseeable event significantly altered the circumstances of the agreement such that performance would no longer fulfil any aspect of its original purpose.

If you have concerns about how COVID-19 will impact a contract with or without a force majeure clause, the lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can assist you with these matters. To schedule an initial consultation, call our team at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law, Coronavirus
  Comments: Comments Off on Applying Pennsylvania Law to Contracts without Force Majeure clauses during COVID-19
  Other posts by

Applying Pennsylvania Law to Contracts with Force Majeure clauses during COVID-19  

By ,

The COVID-19 health crisis has led to government mandated shutdowns of non-essential businesses in Pennsylvania for an extended period of time. Further, due to ongoing health concerns, many questions remain about whether parties will be interested in performing under contracts even after stay-at-home and shut-down orders are lifted.  For example, if you have a large event scheduled in August, will you want to hold it even if the Commonwealth permits large gatherings?  If you have these types of questions, and have entered into a written agreement, it is important to determine whether there is a force majeure clause, and to examine it closely.

A force majeure clause is a contract provision that excuses a party from performance if an unforeseeable event arises during the terms of the contract. Commonly, this type of clause is referred to as an “act of god” provision. When drafting force majeure clauses, parties control the contours of the agreement and those contours will dictate the application, effect and scope of the clause. However, generally speaking, the non-performance must have been caused by an unforeseeable event at the time the contract was entered into. In addition, the event must not have been due to any fault or negligence by the parting asserting the application of the clause.

For courts applying Pennsylvania law, they will likely also look to see whether performance has been made impossible, not simply impractical. In Sunseri v. Garcia & Maggini Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a force majeure clause. The party asserting excusal under the clause did not fulfill its obligations under a contract due to crop failure. Although the contract included crop failure in the force majeure clause, the Court held that application of the clause was not valid due to a partial crop failure, which rendered performance still possible.

COVID-19 is an unprecedented occurrence that many courts have yet to address, particularly as it applies to the enforcement of contracts. The courts in Pennsylvania may apply “act of god” provisions to this pandemic, but that is uncertain and could depend on the contract language.  This could vary on a case-to-case basis, considering the type of contract and material terms of the contract, such as scope in time. If the contract contains broad “act of god” language, then a court is probably more likely to apply the clause versus more specific language defined by the parties themselves. Moreover, there have been legislative efforts to enact laws that would mandate the application of any force majeure clause to apply to the pandemic. To date, state and local governments in Pennsylvania have not enacted such laws.

If you have concerns about how the COVID-19 will impact a contract with or without a force majeure clause, the Philadelphia lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can assist you with these matters. To schedule an initial consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law, Coronavirus
  Comments: Comments Off on Applying Pennsylvania Law to Contracts with Force Majeure clauses during COVID-19  
  Other posts by

Amazon Can Now Be Held Liable for Damaged Third-Party Products

By ,

In addition to the products that Amazon sells itself, the online retail giant also allows third-party vendors to sell products through its website. There are times, however, when the products are damaged or defective. Depending on the product and the nature of the defect, this can cause injuries to the consumer. Until recently, Amazon could not be sued by consumers if a third-party product was defective because the law stated that Amazon was not considered a seller. However, a federal district judge recently ruled that Amazon can now be held liable for selling defective third-party products.

One example of a defective third-party product involved a consumer from Pennsylvania who ordered a dog collar from an Amazon Marketplace seller. The collar broke while she was walking her dog, causing the leash to snap and recoil. It hit her in the eye, causing permanent blindness. A district court in Pennsylvania ruled in favor or Amazon, saying that the retailer was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from the actions of people using those platforms. After she appealed the ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled in her favor.

In the Court’s ruling, the judge stated that Amazon could be held liable for being part of the sales chain. In addition, the Court stated that Amazon is protected for speech, but not for the sale of goods in the real world. According to the Circuit Judge, Amazon may be liable because its business model allows third-party vendors to essentially be hidden from the consumer. If a consumer is injured by a defective third-party product, this makes it difficult for the consumer to hold the vendor liable for the injuries.

Third-Party Products Make Up Significant Percentage of Amazon Business

Roughly half of the products sold on Amazon are third-party products. In the third quarter of 2019, Amazon’s profits from third-party products totaled approximately $11 billion. The defective collar sold on Amazon by the vendor, Furry Gang, is just one example of a damaged third-party product that caused injuries to the consumer. Another defective third-party product that got a lot of attention in 2015 involved the Chinese hoverboards. Problems with the battery caused them to catch on fire, resulting in hundreds of fires and burn-related injuries. State Farm is seeking to hold Amazon liable for the $600,000 in damages associated with a house fire that occurred when the hoverboard caught on fire.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Third-Party Liability Issues

The Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. handle a wide range of legal matters, including cases involving third-party liability issues. Our skilled legal team has a proven track record of reaching successful outcomes for our clients. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Understanding Employment Law Helps Businesses Avoid Future Lawsuits  

By ,

When employers appreciate and respect their employees by offering competitive salaries and benefits packages, opportunities for promotions, and paid time off, their employees are generally more productive and loyal to the company. However, if an employee has been discriminated against or accuses the company of legal wrongdoing, an employer could face serious legal issues if they do not know how to protect themselves from lawsuits and discrimination claims. An experienced employment lawyer can answer all your questions and prepare the legal documents necessary to protect your company from future lawsuits.

One of the most important steps companies should take to avoid serious employment law disputes is to draft a comprehensive, detailed contract that takes as many possibilities into consideration as possible. This is true regardless of how big or small your company is. There is a tendency for entrepreneurs and small business owners to assume that employment law only applies to larger corporations. They do not always consider the fact that small business owners can get into hot water if they make bad hiring and firing decisions or treat their employees poorly.

Importance of Paid Time Off

Employers do not always recognize the value of giving employees paid leave. While some may think it is an unproductive expense, it pays off in the long run by encouraging employees to prioritize their health and wellbeing. Ultimately, this builds job satisfaction and productivity. In addition, if an employer expects employees to work long hours during a particularly busy time, they may be less likely to complain, or accuse the company of unfair treatment if they can take advantage of paid days off.

Employers should also make it a habit of documenting everything that happens in the workplace. For example, if an employee is injured, fill out a detailed accident report that includes information about how the accident occurred and how the company will handle it. Depending on the company size, employers may want to consider hiring a dedicated specialist that can help manage a company’s records.

Hiring an employment lawyer is a significant expense, but one that can save thousands of dollars. An employment lawyer should protect the company and have a thorough understanding of contracts and policies. However, they should not attempt to confuse an employee who accused the company of wrongdoing, simply to try and outwit them. Companies cannot depend on their legal team to bend the rules on their behalf.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Provide Skilled Legal Counsel for Employers

The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are highly skilled in all areas of law that impact the employer-employee relationship, including discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination. Our experienced legal team will work closely with you to create a litigation strategy that addresses your specific concerns. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

General Counsel for Wynn Casinos Involved in Invasion-of-Privacy Lawsuit

By ,

Kim Sinatra, former general counsel for Wynn Casinos, was named in an invasion of privacy lawsuit, alleging that she approved a secret undercover operation targeting Jorgen Nielsen, the former artistic director of a salon at the Wynn Las Vegas. In an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Nielsen publicly accused casino owner, Steve Wynn, of sexual misconduct. The lawsuit claimed that the operation was meant to obtain derogatory information about Nielsen in retaliation for being the named source in the Wall Street Journal article. The complaint also named Wynn Resorts CEO Matthew Maddox and Wynn director of security, James Stern.

According to the lawsuit, Nielsen alleged that Sinatra, Maddox, and Stern sent a spy posing as a client to the Palms Casino Resort, where he accepted a position after resigning from The Wynn Salon, in an effort to gather derogatory information that Wynn could use against him. Shortly after the undercover operation, Wynn filed a defamation lawsuit against Nielsen.

Suspicious Sequence of Events

Nielsen’s attorney discussed the troublesome details surrounding the timing of the alleged spy operation. In January 2018, Nielsen was the named source in a Wall Street Journal article. In February, Wynn resigned as chairman and CEO. The undercover operative was sent to the Palms Casino Resort in March, and Wynn filed a defamation lawsuit in April. Nielson’s lawsuit accused Sinatra, and the other parties named, of invasion of privacy, tortious interference with employment relationship, and civil conspiracy. The lawsuit stated that Stern organized the plan, while Sinatra and Maddox approved it.

In a statement provided by a Wynn spokesperson to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the lawsuit had no merit. Maddox provided a sworn statement before the Massachusetts Gaming Commission saying that the company did not authorize any inappropriate surveillance activity involving Jorgen Nielsen. Sinatra’s lawyer did not respond to a request for a comment

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. seek justice for victims of Invasion of Privacy

If your employment and reputation were jeopardized due to an invasion of privacy by an employer or other party, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. as soon as possible. We will investigate the details of your case and ensure that your legal rights are protected. Our dedicated team will not stop fighting for you until we secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Law Firm Reaches Settlement with Former Associate in Age Bias Lawsuit

By ,

Pryor Cashman LLP reached a settlement with a former associate who claimed that the law firm unfairly terminated his employment after 18 years on the job. The associate claimed that the law firm fired him because of his age, and that they were in violation of the Age Discrimination Act (“ADA”). The law firm argued that he was fired because of his performance, which was considered adequate for most of his time at the firm but had taken a noticeable turn for the worse. According to the members of the firm, he developed a negative, often arrogant attitude.

What is Age Discrimination?

If an employer treats an employee, or a prospective employee, unfavorably due to their age, it is considered age discrimination. This generally applies to employees who are over the age of 40. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) states that employers may not discriminate against individuals who are 40 years of age or older. Employees who are under the age of 40 are not protected under the ADEA, unless their state allows it. In addition, it is not considered illegal if an employer treats an older worker more favorably than a younger one, even if both individuals are over the age of 40. According to the ADEA, employers may not discriminate based on age in any aspect of the employment process, including hiring, salary amount, job responsibilities, promotions, training opportunities, benefits, and any other terms or conditions of employment.

Examples of Age Discrimination

Age discrimination can be obvious and offensive, or it can be subtle, but equally disturbing. Examples of age discrimination include the following:

  • Offensive comments about a person’s age
  • Not getting an interview because of an applicant’s age
  • An employer terminates older workers during company layoffs
  • Turning down older employers who request promotions
  • Firing older workers so that employers can hire younger workers and pay them less
  • Calling older workers names based on their age
  • Recruiting only prospective employees who are under the age of 40

Age discriminators can range from a victim’s supervisor or a co-worker to a client or a customer. Any employment policy or practice that has a negative impact on employees or applicants who are 40 years of age or older can be considered illegal. The only exception is if the policy or practice is based on a reasonable factor other than age.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. represent victims of Age Discrimination

If you or someone you know was discriminated against at work due to age, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Protecting your rights is our top priority and we will work tirelessly to obtain the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Former Employees Allege Pension Cuts During Corporate Restructuring

By ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers handle employee pension issues.Talen Energy is a privately-owned independent power producer that serves commercial and industrial customers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Ohio, and the District of Columbia. In 2016, the company was bought by Riverstone Holding, a New York City-based private investment firm that specializes in the energy industry. According to a federal lawsuit, three former senior engineers from Talen claimed that the company failed to pay them their full pensions after Riverstone Holding took over the company.

All three former employees worked at PPL’s Brunner Island power plant in York County. PPL’s energy supply division became Talen Energy, which continued to own Brunner Island. When Talen Energy was launched on June 1, 2015, the company inherited PPL’s pension provisions. According to the attorney, who represents the former employees, Talen and the senior executives responsible for administering the pension did not pay the men their full pensions required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Court documents claimed that Talen Energy owes them approximately $750,000 in pension costs.

ERISA Anti-Cutback Rule

ERISA includes an anti-cutback rule, which states that employers may not reduce or eliminate early retirement pension benefits that employees have accrued over time. When Talen was taken over by Riverstone Holdings, the then-employees lost their jobs. Since they were all under the age of 60, they were entitled to their full pensions, as well as pension supplements for losing their jobs.

However, Talen executives were allegedly responsible for reducing the retirement payment for each of the three former employees. They also supposedly omitted several provisions for full pensions and supplements that had been in PPL’s pension plan. As a result, they would have been compensated thousands of dollars less than they were legally entitled to receive. According to the workers’ attorney, Talen retained employee benefit plans after the spin-off from PPL. This key piece of information will be presented in court.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Employee Pension Issues

If you did not receive your full pension from your employer, do not hesitate to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Federal law states that employers may not withhold pension benefits from eligible employees. We will protect your rights and work tirelessly to secure the full pension amount to which you are entitled. We will not stop fighting for you until you are completely satisfied. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Former Employees Allege Pension Cuts During Corporate Restructuring
  Other posts by