Legal Opinion
Pactiv Corp. v. Rupert
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided August 1, 2013No. Nos. 12-3704, 12-3804PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.
Reynolds Group Holdings acquired Pactiv Corp. in 2010. The acquisition agreement, which made Pactiv a wholly owned subsidiary, calls for severance pay to any non-union employee let go without cause, within a year, as a result of the transaction.
After the closing, Pactiv established a severance-pay plan. The clause in the acquisition agreement was skeletal; the plan itself contained many implementing terms, including a requirement that the departing worker execute a “separation agreement”, “in a form acceptable to the Company,” releasing all other claims against Pactiv.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. SchoonejongenSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Emil J. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich) and Reishauer Corporation (Elgin)Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Donovan v. DillinghamCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kenny Jones, Sr. v. City of Elkhart, IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
- Herbert Williams v. City of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
- Williams v. WahnerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
- Hertel v. Miller-LewisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
- Aristo Vojdani v. Pharmasan Labs, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.