Whether a dispute proceeds in court or in arbitration can have significant consequences for the positions of the parties and the outcome of the dispute. It is incumbent upon businesses, investors, and their advisors to understand the scope and enforceability of all potentially applicable arbitration agreements they, their affiliates, and their associates enter into both before and after disputes arise.Read More
With its January 7, 2019 decision in O’Gara Coach Co. v. Ra, the California Second District Court of Appeal began the year with a reminder to attorneys about the consequences of possessing an adversary’s privileged and confidential informationRead More
Stock options, warrants, put/call agreements and other agreements involving business ownership rights are often used by growing privately-held companies. Many legal issues may arise when those rights are in dispute.Read More
In its recent decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Yang, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District addressed a split of authority regarding the good faith defense to fraudulent transfer claims in California.
In 1986, California adopted, with minor alterations, the Uniform Law Commission’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act as Civil Code sections 3439, et seq. Effective January 1, 2016, that chapter was amended and renamed the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the “UVTA"). The UVTA creates a civil cause of action by a creditor against a debtor, the debtor’s transferees, and/or the subsequent transferees of the debtor’s transferees to void transfers made by the debtor to defraud the creditor or prevent the creditor from collecting on his claim. Civ. Code § 3439.07(a). A creditor’s claim is defined broadly to include almost any right to payment, including an accrued cause of action or a judgment. Civ. Code § 3439.01(b).Read More
Today, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in one of the most-watched labor and employment cases of 2016. In its opinion in Augustus, et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc., S224853 (December 22, 2016), the Court held that employers may not require employees to remain "on-call" during required rest periods. The decision, which reverses a Court of Appeal decision that was celebrated by many in the business community, may have enormous ramifications for California employers.Read More