In
Pittsburgh Logistics Sys, Inc. v. Beemac
Trucking, LLC, No. 31 WAP 2019, 2021 Pa. LEXIS 1853 (Apr.
29, 2021), the Pennsylvania s Supreme Court concluded that a
no-hire provision in an agreement between two companies was not per
se unlawful; however, the Court ultimately concluded that this
particular restriction was unenforceable as an unreasonable
restraint on trade because it was too broad and because it would
harm parties not to the contract.
No-Hire Provision
The dispute centered on a contract between Pittsburgh Logistics
Systems, Inc. (PLS), a logistics provider that arranges for the
shipping of its customers freight, and Beemac Trucking
(Beemac), a shipping company that did non-exclusive business with
Can contracting parties waive all common law fiduciary duties? That was one of the questions presented to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (the "Court") in 111 West 57th Investment LLC.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") prohibits the sending of unsolicited commercial fax advertisements. Pursuant to the TCPA, companies cannot send advertisements via telecopier without a .
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Mac Parent LLC v. North American Elite Insurance
Company, Index No. 906489/2020, Supreme Court, Albany
County
On March 29, 2021, Justice Richard J. Platkin, of the Albany
County Commercial Division, dismissed an insurance coverage dispute
pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(4) due to another action that was
pending in New York County, making clear that New York courts do
not tolerate forum-shopping in the face of clear forum selection
clauses.
Mac Parent LLC v. North American Elite
Insurance Company, 2021 NY Slip Op 50268(U) (Sup. Ct. Albany
Cnty 2021).
Plaintiff Mac Parent LLC ( Mac Parent ) filed its case
District Court: Cotto-Vázquez v. United States
Facts: Cotto, a highly decorated professional
boxer, entered into eight contracts with Top Rank Inc. for eight
boxing matches with varying purses for each match. The revenues
from the boxing matches were generated as follows: 1) gate
revenues, 2) foreign television, 3) domestic television fees and 4)
advertising and sponsorship revenues. In general, Cotto was to be
compensated for training for the boxing matches, the matches
themselves, and for current rights to his likeness and image as to
the matches and future rights to rebroadcast the matches. Per the
contracts, if any of the boxing matches were canceled, Top Rank was