Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Independent Covenant' Language
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.
The above scenario plays out time and again in courts around the country. Yet, by simply incorporating a clear and unambiguous “independent covenant” or “severability” provision in the restrictive covenant agreement, an employer may be able to avoid the “prior breach” defense altogether and be on its way to the injunction to which it is entitled.
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?