Search for: "Arthur Andersen LLP"
Results 21 - 40
of 181
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2022, 9:06 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 3:20 pm
’” Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
18 Dec 2020, 12:53 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937, 946 (2008) (California courts “have consistently affirmed that section 16600 evinces a settled legislative policy in favor of open competition and employee mobility. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 11:30 am
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008), any contract in restra [read post]
13 Aug 2020, 1:55 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, ruled that a provision in an employment agreement that prevented an employee from competing with his former employer following the termination of his employment was an invalid restraint on trade in violation of section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 9:26 am
Author: Luis Blanquez California’s long-standing public policy in favor of employee mobility over an employer’s ability to prohibit any worker from going to work for a competitor is included in California Business & Professions Code Section 16600. [read post]
27 May 2020, 6:00 am
In Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 10:57 am
• “[W]e recognize that the base lodestar figure amounts for most of the relevant Arthur Andersen(30) considerations. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 11:05 am
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937, 946-47 (2008). [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 5:45 am
UTSW DVA Healthcare LLP (578 S.W.3d 469), the Court addressed two different methods of calculating fees – the 8-factor test from the Arthur Andersen case (945 S.W.2d 812) versus the lodestar method – concluding that the lodestar method is the right place to start in calculating fees. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 5:45 am
UTSW DVA Healthcare LLP (578 S.W.3d 469), the Court addressed two different methods of calculating fees – the 8-factor test from the Arthur Andersen case (945 S.W.2d 812) versus the lodestar method – concluding that the lodestar method is the right place to start in calculating fees. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 10:00 am
Arthur Andersen, LLP, recognized that under this broad right, “an employer cannot by contract restrain a former employee from engaging in his or her profession, trade or business, unless the agreement falls within one of the exceptions to the rule” [i.e., concerning the sale of a business, partnership or LLC interest]. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 2:23 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP. [read post]
18 May 2019, 9:27 am
Many, at best, pay lip service to the Arthur Andersen fee factors, or at least some of them. [read post]
16 May 2019, 8:00 am
Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir. 1995). [read post]
8 May 2019, 1:21 pm
, 547 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am
UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, No. 16-0006 (Tex. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 4:25 am
Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 536, 553-54 (1985). [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 4:38 am
Arthur Andersen. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 6:48 am
Arthur Andersen LLP, the California Supreme Court ruled previous workers are entitled to solicit the clients of former employers – assuming they don’t do so using their former employer’s trade secrets or confidential information while doing so. [read post]
