It is common knowledge that California generally prohibits post-employment non-compete provisions. However, people know far less about law pertaining to post-employment non-solicitation provisions.
In this post, I will describe existing post-employment non-compete and non-solicitation case law. Then I will discuss a recent case that may signal a new direction.
Background – Non-competition Provisions Disfavored
People typically think about corporate board members having equal voting rights: One director, one vote. However, for Delaware corporations, that is not always the case.
Delaware Statute – Board Members
This unusual situation is the result of a Delaware statute. (more…)
The term ” smart contract ” has been appearing a lot, lately. (A recent Google search returned more than 4 million hits!) But there is confusion and misunderstanding concerning what this term means.
This post explains what smart contracts are, and what they are not. (more…)
Several years ago, I wrote about stockholder inspection rights. (See Which Financial Information Must a Corporation Provide to its Shareholders? ) This post explains how stockholders of a Delaware corporation can waive inspection rights.
Delaware General Corporation Law Section 220 gives stockholders a right to “inspect for any proper purpose, and to make copies and extracts from…[t]he corporation’s stock ledger, a list of its stockholders, and its other books and records”. Furthermore, “proper purpose” means “a purpose reasonably related to such person’s interest as a stockholder.” (more…)
This post discusses the process by which a corporation may declare a dividend. This is part of Dana Shultz’s Canonical Questions on the Law™ series of questions and answers about legal issues, concepts and terminology.
Please note that this post assumes that the corporation will pay a cash dividend to its shareholders. If, instead, the corporation wishes to pay a stock dividend (issue more shares to existing shareholders), then somewhat different rules will apply. (more…)
In this post I will explain why one sometimes sees ” Reserved ” in a section of a contract. I first presented this information in a Quora answer. Please see What is a “Reserved” clause in a contract?
Sometimes Sections are Deleted from Contracts
Sometimes (especially in olden days), when one no longer needed a Section in a contract, the lawyer drafting or revising the contract didn’t want to remove that Section entirely. The reason for this reluctance? Removal would require changing the numbering of the following Sections. (more…)
In this post I will explain why, sometimes, it can be helpful to blame your lawyer for something that really is not the lawyer’s fault.
In my experience, this situation typically arises when a client is negotiating business terms with a counterparty. (more…)
It includes much of a Quora answer that I wrote on this topic. Please see How does the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 compare to GDPR?
Disclaimer: This comparison, of necessity, is limited to the broadest generalizations. While the California Consumer Privacy Act or 2018 (“CCPA”) is of a respectable length, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) has 99 Articles, most with several Sub-articles – and that’s preceded by 173 lengthy paragraphs of recitals! Consequently, most of what follows is, in reality, subject to significant additional details, qualifications and exceptions that are too numerous to include here.
Now available for download: A four-page GDPR-CCPA comparison table that includes many more details than are in this post.
In an earlier post, In Delaware, No Par Value Can Cost a Bundle, I discussed the two methods by which Delaware’s franchise tax for a corporation may be calculated. This post discusses the history of those two methods.
To some extent, this post is educated guesswork. It is based on a Quora question that I answered. Please see What is the rationale/reason (not math) behind the two methods of calculation for Delaware’s domestic franchise tax fee?
This post discusses a recent decision by which the California Supreme Court adopted the so-called ABC Test for misclassification of employees as independent contractors.