Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: U.S. Supreme Court to Address Neutrality Agreement

Publications

June 27, 2013

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a neutrality agreement between Hollywood Greyhound Track Inc. d/b/a Mardi Gras Gaming ("Mardi Gras") and UNITE HERE Local 355 ("UNITE HERE") violated Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").

A "neutrality agreement" is an agreement between an employer and a union by which the employer agrees not to campaign against a union's attempt to organize its workforce. In the neutrality agreement at issue in Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, Mardi Gras agreed to give UNITE HERE access to nonpublic work areas to organize employees during work hours, provide the union with the names and home addresses of employees, and remain neutral during UNITE HERE's attempts to organize. In exchange, UNITE HERE agreed to "lend financial support to a ballot initiative regarding casino gaming" and "refrain from picketing, boycotting, striking, or undertaking other economic activity against Mardi Gras," should the majority of Mardi Gras' employees recognize UNITE HERE as their exclusive bargaining representative.

Section 302 prohibits an employer from paying, lending, or delivering, or agreeing to pay, lend, or deliver, "any money or thing of value" to "any labor organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks to represent, or would admit to membership, any of the employees of such employer" subject to certain exceptions. Mardi Gras employee, Martin Muhall, filed an action in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking to enjoin enforcement of the neutrality agreement on the basis that it violated Section 302 of the LMRA. Upon review of the district court's dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim, the Eleventh Circuit found that an employer’s organizing assistance could be a "thing of value" under Section 302.

Willful violations of Section 302 can result in a fine of up to $15,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years, both.

We expect a decision in this case in mid-2014.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.