| |
| | Corporate Counsel Beware: The SEC May Freeze “Extraordinary Payments”: Nixon Peabody LLP |
 | | Yuen and Leung claimed that the severance package contained the same categories of payments that their employment contracts, executed years earlier, required in the event of a “termination without cause,” but that the revised payments were “substantially reduced from the amounts [they] would have received had their former employment contracts remained in force” (id. |
 | | Yuen and Leung claim that they reluctantly agreed to the escrow, provided that the SEC agreed “to release a portion of the [escrowed funds] once it had determined what portion of the [severance package] allegedly were properly subject to escrow as ’extraordinary payments’” (id. |
 | | Yuen and Leung claimed that, under their proposed definition, the payments at issue were not “extraordinary;” rather, the payments represented payment of unpaid salary, bonuses, and vacation due under their employment agreements, executed in 1998, and termination payments, which also were based upon employment agreements (id. |
| www.nixonpeabody.com /publications_detail3.asp?Type=P&PAID=6&ID=370 (1089 words) |
|