Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Word to the Wise
The employment-at-will doctrine is the bane of the plaintiffs' bar. Exceptions under New York law are rare and strictly construed against the employee. More than just a shield, the at-will doctrine has been a seeming impenetrable wall insulating employers from liability. Is there ever an instance where an employee can invoke the at-will doctrine for his or her benefit? Just ask Seth Brody.
Mr. Brody agreed to leave his employment with Priceline.com to join Skillgames. His new employer alleged that Brody committed himself to leaving Priceline and to “continued employment” with it. In exchange, Skillgames agreed to provide Brody with a non-recourse loan of $125,000 based on his representation that he would be forfeiting that amount in Priceline stock options by joining Skillgames. Brody executed a non-recourse promissory note that was secured solely by Skillgames stock. Brody also executed an employment contract providing that his employment was at-will.
However, things did not work out as planned. Brody did not in fact sever his ties with Priceline immediately but continued to work for it after hours. As a consequence, some additional Priceline stock vested. From Brody's perspective, the Skillgames job was not what he believed was promised and did not pan out. Within weeks of his joining Skillgames, a major investor withdrew its support, layoffs followed, and soon thereafter the company's controlling shareholder announced that the company would be dissolved. Brody shortly thereafter returned to Priceline.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?