Xxxxxxxxx & Co. WASB Employee Opinion Survey
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. (1987), the Nebraska Supreme Court announced as a general rule that “a covenant not to compete in an employment contract may be valid only if it restricts the former employee from ... soliciting the former employer’s clients or accounts with whom the former employee actually did business and has personal contact.” North Carolina has adopted a “look-back” rule when a noncompetition agreement includes customers of the employer that an employee is not serving at the time of termination but has served in the past. Thus, if a noncompete agreement prevents an employee from serving customers for a period of 3 years after termination and it applies to any customer served by the employee within the 2 years prior to termination, North Carolina considers the ac- tual time restriction to be 5 years (Professional Liability Consultants, Inc. x. Xxxx, 1996). Other states take a more relaxed approach allowing noncompetition restrictions that protect more than just the customers with whom the employee had contacts (cf. Xxxxx x. Xxxxx, 1987). Similarly, courts are reluctant to allow noncompetition agreements that prevent an employee from working in any position for a competitor or that prohibit an employee from engaging in a business that is not directly competitive with the employer’s business. Thus, in Xxxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx (1971), the New York Court of Appeals upheld a noncompetition agreement that prevented an oral surgeon from engaging in the practice of oral surgery within a five-county area of New York, but it refused to enforce that part of the noncompete that would have prevented the oral surgeon from practicing dentistry. The employer did not practice dentistry and thus the former employee would not be directly competing with him. Although Virginia has allowed covenants restricting employees from engaging in the “same” or “similar” business,” the Virginia Supreme Court recently invalidated a noncompetition agreement that defined a “similar” business too broadly. In Motion Control Systems, Inc. v. East (2001), Motion Control designed and manufactured brushless motors. Xxxxxxx Xxxx was part of the management team of Motion Control Systems with access to customer lists and new product developments. He agreed not to work for any similar business, which was defined as “any business that designs, manufactures, sells or distributes motors, motor drives, or motor controls.” Because the noncompete agreement would prohibit East from working in a business that sold any type ...
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. Attention:
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. By: /s/ Jxxx X. Xxxxxx -------------------------- Name: Jxxx X. Xxxxxx Title: Vice President
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. 374 Mass. 352, 357–58 (1978). Betterment assessments (e.g., assessments for the installation of public “betterments” such as sewers, sidewalks, traffic signals, and the like) are included among reimbursable taxes. The tenant should insist that the additional rent payable with respect to assessments be calculated as if the landlord had elected to pay the assessment over the longest period allowed by law and that, in any given year, only the annual charge be included in taxes for that year. Otherwise, the ten- ant may find itself funding a sidewalk or sewer improvement, the economic benefit of which will accrue to its successors. The lease should provide that the tenant will receive credit for any reduction or rebate of taxes achieved through a real estate tax abatement, net of the cost of obtaining the abatement. Where additional rent is payable only with respect to increases in taxes over a base amount, the landlord’s attorney should be careful to specify that any credit or rebate to the tenant be limited to the amount of additional rent paid with respect to taxes in the year or years to which the abatement applies. The tenant would like to have the right to compel the landlord to seek an abatement or, alternatively, the right to seek an abatement directly. The landlord will resist giving the tenant either of these rights, and usually only those tenants leasing a substantial portion of a building or project or with strong bargaining power will get this right. The landlord’s argument against giving this right is that the landlord has every bit as much an interest in keeping taxes low as does the tenant and that the landlord, as the property owner and taxpayer, should have the right to control negotiations and rela- tions with the taxing authority. Where the landlord must concede on this point, it should insist that the tenant will have the right to prosecute an abatement directly only if the landlord declines to seek an abatement upon the request of the tenant. Under X.X. x. 59, § 59, a tenant responsible for 51 percent or more of the real estate taxes payable on a property has the right to seek an abatement in its own name. Where the lease calls for the tenant to pay a share of the excess of taxes over those incurred during a base period, the tenant should consider the ill effect of a tax abatement affecting the base period not accompanied by parallel abatements in subsequent periods.
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. Announces
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. 558 A.2d 1049 (Del. Ch. 1988); IN RE XXXXX FARMS CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, SUPRA note 16. XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX & XXXXXXXX LETTERHEAD Company to the effect that any person or group is interested in acquiring the Company's shares other than for investment purposes. In our view, the Board, after the presentations made today by the legal and investment banking experts, will be in a reasonable position to make final determinations and a decision on authorizing the Agreement.
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. International LLP (which is authorised and regulated in the UK by the FCA) is acting for Alder and no one else in connection with the sale of Nordic Water and will not be responsible to anyone other than Alder for providing the protections afforded to clients or for providing advice in relation to the sale of Nordic Water or the contents of this document.
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. 1985 OK 38, ¶ 8, 000 X.0x 000, 528-529. 3 Id. 4 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 103; Xxxxx x. Xxxxxx Real Estate, 2009 OK CIV APP 47, ¶ 9. 5 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 102(15). 6 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 109. 7 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 102(11). 8 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 102(5). 9 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 §§ 123, 124, 128. 10 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 117. 11 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 102(10) & (3). 12 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 110. 13 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 111(C). terminated through the termination procedures outlined in the ORLTA.14 In all terminations, the parties are required to act in good faith.15 The ORTLA provides: Except as otherwise provided in this act, whenever either party to a rental agreement rightfully elects to terminate, the duties of each party under the rental agreement shall cease and be determined upon the effective date of said termination, and the parties shall thereupon discharge any remaining obligations under this act as soon as practicable.
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. The Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx Itasca, Illinois 60143-3141 Attention: General Counsel Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Telecopy: (000) 000-0000 with a copy to: Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx & Co. The Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx Itasca, Illinois 60143-3141 Attention: Treasurer Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Telecopy: (000) 000-0000 Each such notice, request or other communication shall be effective (i) if given by telecopier, when such telecopy is transmitted to the telecopier number specified in this Section 14.8 or on the signature pages hereof and a confirmation of receipt of such telecopy has been received by the sender, (ii) if given by courier, when delivered or (iii) if given by any other means, when delivered at the addresses specified in this Section 14.8 or on the signature pages hereof; provided that any notice given pursuant to Section 1 hereof shall be effective only upon receipt.
