Search for: "Arthur Andersen LLP" Results 61 - 80 of 180
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Feb 2014, 12:05 pm by James Goodman
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008) and held that customer non-solicits were unenforceable, it noted that Edward’s agreement likewise contained an employee non-solicit, but since Edwards did not dispute that portion of the agreement or contend that it was unenforceable, it did not address the employee-non-solicit in its holding. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 12:05 pm by James (Jim) A. Goodman
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008) and held that customer non-solicits were unenforceable, it noted that Edward’s agreement likewise contained an employee non-solicit, but since Edwards did not dispute that portion of the agreement or contend that it was unenforceable, it did not address the employee-non-solicit in its holding. [read post]
21 Dec 2012, 11:48 am
Arthur Andersen LLP, making it clear that employee post-employment non-compete agreements are unenforceable in California except in certain very limited circumstances, including in connection with the sale of a good business involving goodwill. [read post]
23 May 2012, 9:48 am by Isaac Gorodetski
It has been 10 years since Arthur Andersen LLP, former "Big Five" accounting firm, was indicted for its actions related to the audit of Enron. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 2:58 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Bus, Credit v Peat Marnick Main & Co., 79 NY2d 695, 702 [I 9921; Credit Alliance Corp. v Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 NY2d 536 [ISSS]). [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 3:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
But as any former partner at Arthur Andersen LLP — once one of the "Big Five" accounting firms — could attest, an outside professional (and especially an auditor) whose corporate client experiences a rapid or disastrous decline in fortune precipitated by insider fraud does not skate away unscathed. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 2:20 pm by Kenneth J. Vanko
Arthur Andersen, LLP, the California Supreme Court rejected a "narrow restraint" rule which would have exempted restrictions that did not totally foreclose an employee from working in his chosen profession. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 11:42 am by Peter Steinmeyer
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008), the California Supreme Court confirmed the viability and breadth of section 16600 and expressly rejected a line of Ninth Circuit cases which had upheld sufficiently narrow restrictive covenants that only barred a party from pursuing a small or limited part of its business. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 10:42 am by Peter (Pete) A. Steinmeyer
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008), the California Supreme Court confirmed the viability and breadth of section 16600 and expressly rejected a line of Ninth Circuit cases which had upheld sufficiently narrow restrictive covenants that only barred a party from pursuing a small or limited part of its business. [read post]
24 May 2011, 1:46 pm by Victoria VanBuren
Strong, Non-signatories’ Right to Appeal the Denial of a Stay of Litigation: Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
21 May 2011, 10:45 pm
" Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]