vimarsana.com

Page 26 - பெருநிறுவன மற்றும் நிறுவனம் சட்டம் News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Updates To Massachusetts Franchise Protection Laws - Corporate/Commercial Law

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. On January 12, 2021, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law Bill S2841 amending Chapter 138 of the General Laws by inserting Sec. 25E 1/2. Under M.G.L.A. 138 § 25E ½ a brewery may, without good cause, terminate the right of a licensed wholesaler to whom such brewery has made regular sales of malt beverages subject to the provisions of this section. In order to qualify, breweries must produce less than 240,000 barrels of beverages in a year. Breweries must provide the affected wholesaler no less than 30 days written notice and full compensation. the laid-in cost

The Party Must Continue – With A Cake - Corporate/Commercial Law

On April 30, 2021, the Delaware Chancery Court (the “Court”) issued a decision in Snow Phipps Group, LLC v. KCake Acquisition, Inc., ordering an affiliate of private equity buyer Kohlberg & Co. (“Kohlberg”) to acquire cake decoration supplier, DecoPac Holdings Inc. (“DecoPac”), for $550 million. In the opinion, newly sworn-in Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick affirmed prior case law on several common contractual provisions that bear on deal certainty in the time of COVID-19 (including material adverse effect, or “MAE,” conditions; interim operating covenants; and the reasonable best efforts standard). Most notably, however, the Court said it had “chalked up a victory for deal certainty” by granting DecoPac s request to force Kohlberg to

Equity Compensation Alternatives - Employment and HR

Business Conduct That Is Beyond Reproach - Corporate/Commercial Law

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strikes Down No-Hire Agreement - Anti-trust/Competition Law

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

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.