Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Most standard employment agreements and personnel policies include provisions that condition the receipt of certain benefits or trigger certain disciplinary actions on the basis of 'good cause' or 'cause.'
For example, an employment agreement may limit termination only in those circumstances in which the employer has cause to do so. Other times, the receipt of certain benefits, such as severance, is limited to those situations in which the employee's departure from the company was for some reason other than 'cause.' Occasionally, examples of what constitutes cause is set forth in the agreement or the policy. More often, however, the agreement does not contain any description, and it is left up to the employer to decide whether cause exists.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.