Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Non-Competition Law in France and the EU
In France, like in the U.S., covenants not to compete are not prohibited per se. They are unlawful only if they create unreasonable restraints upon employees' freedom to work. In the same way, Article 340 of the Swiss Code of Obligations and Article 2125 of the Italian Civil Code do no prohibit employment agreements that limit employees' rights to perform their activities to subsequent employers, provided that the scope of the restrictions do not prevent employees from finding an alternate job.
However, in the international arena, U.S. employers should refrain from seeking to blindly impose the “American way” of drafting and implementing restrictive covenants in an attempt to harmonize their employees' working conditions all over the world. Indeed, there is simply no such a thing as a standard restrictive covenant that could be implemented whatever the location of the workplace in the world. More generally, U.S. companies that choose to “go global” should never forget that employment laws in the international arena significantly differ according to the legal, social, political and economic background in each country. While employment relationships in the U.S. are governed by private arrangements that are voluntarily entered into between employers and employees, they generally consist, in other industrialized countries, of a comprehensive and paternalistic set of legal rules the main purpose of which are to protect employees in their subordinate relations vis-'-vis their employers. Consequently, most employment laws in industrialized countries and in particular in Western Europe are more employee-friendly than U.S. employment law (including California law).
Employee's Obligation of Loyalty
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.