4 ms·
Not a lawyer but this always struck me as exaggerated. One, the FDIC was always going to provide a meaningful fraction in days which would have covered payroll
by chernevik 4y ago
Not a lawyer but this always struck me as exaggerated.
One, the FDIC was always going to provide a meaningful fraction in days which would have covered payroll. Employees and vendors are going to understand a few days delay because of a bank failure. It's embarrassing and bad but not existential.
Two, I expect the law is written such that a payment failure for liquidity induced bankruptcy isn't going to reach directors/officers. It's California so who knows but a law that did would be very badly written.
- zamnos 4y agoWhy guess, we have the Internet these days. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=558.1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... Or for some analysis https://www.fennemorelaw.com/california-court-clarifies-personal-liability-of-managers-for-unpaid-wages/ https://www.fennemorelaw.com/california-court-clarifies-pers...