Blair v. Infineon Technologies AG

720 F. Supp. 2d 462 (2010)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Blair v. Infineon Technologies AG

United States District Court for the District of Delaware
720 F. Supp. 2d 462 (2010)

SC
Play video

Facts

Infineon Technologies, AG (defendant) created Qimonda AG (Qimonda), as a subsidiary. Infineon also created Qimonda North America Corporation and Qimonda Richmond LLC (Qimonda Subsidiaries). At the outset, Infineon owned 85 percent of Qimonda stock. This ownership was later reduced to 77.5 percent. Qimonda was unable to obtain independent financing given this ownership structure. However, Infineon initially provided Qimonda with 565 million EU in financing. Infineon also placed three of its own officers or board members in those positions within Qimonda. Infineon included Qimonda’s employees and earnings in its financial statements. Infineon used the term “Infineon Group” to refer to the combination of the entities, and stated that Infineon controlled the Infineon Group’s management and corporate functions. In fact, Infineon shared the provision of the following services, among others, with Qimonda: human resources, sales, facility management, legal, and accounting. When Qimonda AG’s business started to fail in 2008 and 2009, Infineon forced the Qimonda Subsidiaries to provide 87 percent of their revenue to Qimonda AG. Qimonda closed multiple facilities, and Blair (plaintiff) and other employees of the Qimonda Subsidiaries were laid off. Certain Qimonda employees were induced to waive their severance packages in exchange for employment at another facility, but Qimonda never fulfilled those relocation promises. Certain other employees were induced to take delayed severance, but Qimonda likewise did not honor those agreements. Blair sued Infineon and Qimonda AG, claiming that the layoffs violated various state and federal labor laws. Infineon filed a motion to dismiss based on its status as merely the parent of the Qimonda Subsidiaries.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Robinson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership