Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Oct. 12, 2003, then-California Gov. Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 796 into law and created a new private right of action for California employees to enforce most provisions of the Labor Code (with the exception of certain workers' compensation provisions). S.B. 796 will likely have significant implications for all California employers, both for franchisors with either company-owned or franchised units in California, and franchisees operating in the state.
The bill, which became effective on Jan. 1, 2004, allows employees to act as private attorneys general in suing their employers for employment law violations that are not cited by a governmental agency. By providing for civil penalties and lawyers' fees for the successful plaintiff, S.B. 796 might represent full employment for some California lawyers.
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.
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
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?
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?