Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It is a defense that has become perfunctory in restrictive covenant litigation ' “my former employer is barred from enforcing the restrictive covenant because it committed a prior breach of the agreement!” Most often, the former employee will claim that the former employer breached the employment agreement by failing to pay wages, salary, bonuses or other sums, which renders the entire employment agreement, including the restrictive covenant, unenforceable. When such a defense is raised, an injunction hearing that should focus on the former employee's wrongful post-employment conduct instead often digresses into a hearing at which an argument about what compensation agreement existed and whether the former employer breached that agreement takes place instead.
By the end of injunction hearing, the former employee has often successfully muddied the water enough that the former employer has not established a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” on its restrictive covenant claim, a showing that is generally required for entry of an injunction.
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.