This column reports on recent notable decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. This article discusses two companion opinions by District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino addressing the legal implications caused by an altered release and an opinion by Senior District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy holding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel precluded a party from pursuing litigation claims that he failed to disclose in a prior bankruptcy.
Altered Releases
In a move that has spawned several lawsuits, Steifel Laboratories, Inc. conducted a buyback of its employees’ stock and then quickly sold all its shares to Glaxosmithkline at a significant profit. One of those lawsuits is Glaxosmithkline v. Beede.1 There, the defendant Clifford Beede worked for Steifel for many years and then continued to work for Glaxosmithkline until he was let go in 2011 as part of a reduction in force. Steifel had bought back some of Beede’s stock in the company during his tenure and prior to the sale to Glaxosmithkline. When he was terminated, Steifel offered Beede a severance package conditioned on Beede’s signing a general release.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
