Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Over the past two decades, the monitoring of legal bills by insurance firms that are paying for outside counsel has become standard practice. Whether using in-house accounting staff or hiring a third party, insurers have put attorneys on notice about what they will pay for, and how work must be documented. In turn, attorneys who defend insurance cases have had to adjust the way they do business.
Features
Attorneys who conduct a large number of insurance defense cases say that they face these problems with the insurance companies that they represent.
Features
Judy Brompster of Accountability Services (New York) says that some auditing firms are too prescriptive in their approach. "How can an auditing firm say that a deposition should take 40 minutes?" she asks. "Some take more, and some take less."
Features
Major setback for same-sex marriage advocates.
Features
A major setback for same-sex marriage advocates.
The Internet search company's troubled IPO has finally started -- Google started trading on Thursday morning, Aug. 19 under the symbol GOOG on the NASDAQ exchange. Shares opened for trading at $85, as expected, lower than the projected price set when Google announced it was going public. Thursday's trading ended with the price per share of just over $100 -- more than an 18% increase.
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
Franchises dominate such industries as fast food, automobile, rental car, and cosmetics, but perhaps no business model is as dependent on franchising as the hotel industry. As a result, the hotel industry presents an interesting study on how multi-branded franchisors deal with unique issues affecting the relationships between the franchisor and its franchisee, suppliers and vendors, and the traveling public.
Features
<i>JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America</i>, 115 Cal.App.4th 168, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 840 (2004) (<i>JRS Products</i>), decided earlier this year, provides important clarification of the scope of remedies available under California law to franchisees who have been wrongfully terminated. The California Appellate Court decision holds, among other things, that the California Franchise Relations Act (CFRA) does not bar a franchisee from recovering damages for breach of contract for wrongful termination.