Not getting paid for work done? I worked in Colorado, USA for a startup. On a Monday morning we were informed that our investor decided not to continue investing in our company and so our payroll from that last Friday was paid for/fronted by the HR company. After a tumultuous week, we were informed on Friday that our company was closing and that we would not be paid the final paycheck owed us. In some follow up discussions, I learned that our investor's investments were "debt investments" and were "secured debt". I was told this means that in the bankruptcy his investments will be paid before being paid that final paycheck or for unpaid PTO. Given the size of this secured debt (over 20 million USD), it seems unlikely we will receive any payment for those. As far as I know the company has not yet filed for bankruptcy but has rather ceased operations. It sounds like some bills are being paid with new money from the investor. When does a CEO (or the investor or the board) have to notify employees they will be unable to pay them for work already done? Does an investor have a responsibility to ensure all employees are paid? Do the employees have any recourse? Is "secured debt" real? And does that reduce the likelihood of receiving a paycheck in a bankruptcy settlement? Does any of this change if the company doesn't file for bankruptcy?
When does a CEO (or the investor or the board) have to notify employees they will be unable to pay them for work already done? Directors and officers (which includes executive officers like the CEO) but not investors have a duty to ensure that the corporation does not trade while insolvent. In this context, "trading" means incurring new debts and "insolvent" means being unable to pay their debts as and when they fall due. Unfortunately, it is a judgment call by those directors and officers and the exact point where it occurred is generally only clear with hindsight, if then. For example, you describe a "tumultuous week"; quite likely the company was urgently seeking additional sources of funds and until it was clear they had no prospect of getting those, they weren't insolvent. The director's duty is to act reasonably (a broad range of activities) and not be overly pessimistic nor optimistic about the company's prospects. As far as I know, they don't have a positive duty to inform their creditors that they can't pay. If that happens their obligation is to file for bankruptcy and their obligations cease - the bankruptcy trustee then invites creditors to prove their debts. Does an investor have a responsibility to ensure all employees are paid? No. That is pretty much the purpose of limited liability corporations: to shield the investor from the debts of the company. Do the employees have any recourse? Yes. Employees are typically priority creditors in Colorado and rank ahead of many other creditors. However, if the company is not based in Colorado different laws will apply. Of course, you must be an employee of the company - this priority doesn't apply to true independent contractors. Also, the liquidator's fees rank ahead of anyone and unless the bankrupt company has adequate realizable assets, even employees are unlikely to get a dividend. You also need to be clear who you work for as you say "that last Friday was paid for/fronted by the HR company". Do you work for the bankrupt company or this (non-bankrupt) HR company? If the latter then they owe you your wages and the bankruptcy of their principal is their problem, not yours. Is "secured debt" real? And does that reduce the likelihood of receiving a paycheck in a bankruptcy settlement? Yes. There is a priority in the payment of creditors in liquidations and it varies by jurisdiction but a typical arrangement might go like: Liquidator's Fees Employee wages and entitlement accrued within the last 6 months Certain taxes Secured creditors (who may have a ranking among themselves) Unsecured creditors (including employee entitlements more than 12 months old, other taxes, trade creditors etc.) Shareholders (who may have a ranking among themselves) Basically, the lower you rank, the less likely you are to see a dividend. Does any of this change if the company doesn't file for bankruptcy? Sure. Until the company does this it is still a going concern and it has to pay its debts. If it doesn't it's creditors can sue and recover their monies as best they can which may include forcing the company into bankruptcy.
They fail as a business and the debt passes to another bank. There is a massive banking catastrophe and most banks fail. Companies do not cease to exist because they are in bankruptcy. Typically a caretaker management is set in place (elected either by the borrowers or the judge overseeing the bankruptcy) to avoid the loss of value during those proceedings. Usually a company in bankruptcy has to reduce its operations because it will find it difficult to get resources to continue its usual operations. But it could continue those operations that are still expected to provide a profit. It would not be unusual for the caretaker manager to ask more funds from the borrowers in order to ensure that they do not lose even more of the value of the company. I would say that debt collection is profitable enough to keep it running, at very least to cover the minimal legal requirements so that the debt does not expire. And at the very least, the debt can be sold to a debt collection agency or another bank, outside of the bankruptcy proceedings (then the net value of this sell is what will be passed on to the borrowers). It will give a small profit for the original company, but at almost no cost or risk for them. Also, the debt holder would have no incentive to collect if it was in bankruptcy proceedings and didnt own anything. You are confusing managers with owners. The people deciding what to do are the managers, and even in bankruptcy managers still owe fiduciary duty to their business. In fact, in general there is no need for the manager of the company to &quot;own anything&quot; of the company they manage, yet they have to work to improve its situation. If a manager negligently caused the company to cause value, he could be sued for it. Even if he is not sued, it would look very bad for him when looking for a new job. In any case, this is not different than the shop across the street going out of business. Have you seen any of them putting a sign telling &quot;We no longer own anything, so come here and help yourself whatever you want for free&quot;? No? A credit card company would not do that, either.
Can he/lawyer try to use the payment to me as leverage, for example, offer to give me that payment only if I agree to sign a non-compete or other document? The employer ultimately ought to comply with the written agreements between you two. The employer is not allowed to belatedly impose conditions that alter (to your detriment) the contract(s), let alone when you are no longer his employee. The clause "You will be paid on X and Y when/if they close" does not reflect whatsoever that payment is contingent on your acceptance of a non-compete agreement. Your description does not reflect any legal merits that would justify your employer to further withhold the compensation to which you are entitled pursuant to the deal/sale that got closed. The employer and his lawyer are just being vexatious.
The CEO, with his lawyer have tried to convince me that this only apply to current client and any past clients that I have work on. Is this true? No. It will be true only if they make that clarification in the clause or a properly added amendment. The clause currently has no indication that it is limited to "current client and any past clients that [you] have work[ed] on". The CEO's &amp; lawyer's refusal to amend the clause so as to make it consistent with their attempts [to persuade you] would be a red flag. Their inconsistent representations to you suggest that they are not planning to honor the covenant of good faith on which all contracts are premised. Should I expect the CEO to offer a fair contract or is this something you read and negotiate? You should require a contract that seems fair to you. And by "to you" I mean that it has to be in line with your expectations regardless of the average conditions in the labor market. Negotiations are not binding. They are merely a preamble to a contract, and that contract is binding. This is why you should reject a contract that falls short of your requirements. Some clauses are unlawful and/or void and unenforceable as unconscionable or for contravening legislation (unlawful clauses can and do arise even if drafted by attorneys). Thus, although you might not have to worry about those clauses in particular, the company's mere attempt to include them in a contract should alert you of the high risk of ending up with other abusive terms &amp; conditions which are binding and enforceable nonetheless.
You can either sue the company in the US, or in the Philippines. It would be easier for you to sue in the Philippines, but easier to collect if the trial is in the US. You need to hire a lawyer and provide more details. In both countries, it is illegal to refuse to pay an employee for work done, but it is not clear from your description that you were legally employees (this could be a breech of contract case). The Fair Labor Standards Act (which requires employees to be paid) may be applicable to the company: although there is a "foreign exemption" for word done overseas, this seems to relate to minimum wage, overtime and child labor, and not the basic obligation to pay wages.
Can an employer charge employee/contractor a processing fee for payment? No. The matter depends on whether the person qualifies as employee for purposes of the British Columbia Employment Standards Act. Your description suggests that you meet criterion (b) of the definition of employee insofar as you are (i.e., if you are) "a person an employer allows, directly or indirectly, to perform work normally performed by an employee". See section 1(1) of the Act. Section 21(1) prohibits an employer to "directly or indirectly, withhold, deduct or require payment of all or part of an employee's wages for any purpose", and item (2) prohibits the employer to "require an employee to pay any of the employer's business costs except as permitted by the regulations". There is no indication that the alleged business cost of e-transfers would be one such exception. do I have any recourse for such a small amount of money that isn't worth starting a law suit over? You have the option to file a complaint in "an office of the Employment Standards Branch". See sections 74 et seq for further details. You are not specifying the amount of the e-transfer that is being deducted from your compensation. The smaller the amount(s) at issue, the more important it will be for your complaint to persuasively explain how it is not "frivolous, vexatious or trivial". See section 76(c). Directing the employer's attention to the aforementioned statutory prohibition prior to filing a complaint tends to disprove allegations of vexation. That is because you are giving the employer an opportunity to mend its conduct and avert the proceedings that otherwise would take place. That being said, a very occasional cost of few cents is very likely to lead to a conclusion of vexation or bad faith regardless of your preliminary steps. In most other contexts, though, it is in your best interest to stay aware of the obligations that are being presented/proposed to you so that your actions do not constitute an acceptance of terms &amp; conditions you would rather reject. Not all contracts come in the form of a written document signed by the parties.
You need a lawyer There is no magic phrase to do what you want. The company will care about defending their assets, while you will want to defend yours. Only a lawyer will be able to tailor the condition that makes sense based on what your job's domain covers and your side projects. It is entirely possible that your personal projects conflict with your employer's, and you must then put your personal projects on hold or risk getting sued. e.g.) developing two pieces of software that does the same thing. Your lawyer will be able to advise on how that looks and what to do. No random strangers on the internet can give you accurate advice.
As in most of the world, there is a BIG difference between a person running a business and a person owning a company which runs a business. In the first case, the person is liable for all the debts of the business, in the second case, providing they have fulfilled the legal duties as am owner/director (as applicable) they are not liable for the debts of the company. One of those legal duties is to stop racking up debts you can't pay. In either case, your friend needs professional advice (legal and/or accounting) NOW! A person who is insolvent (cannot pay their debts as and when they fall due) can seek protection from their creditors through bankruptcy. German bankruptcy law, by most standards, is brutal but not so brutal as to take away parenting rights or put the person in jail.