In ExxonMobil Corp. v. Drennen , No. 12-0621, 2013 WL 9600951 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2014), the court was asked to consider the enforceability of restricted stock agreements that included New York choice-of-law clauses and called for the forfeiture of outstanding awards if a recipient engaged in "detrimental activity." After a former ExxonMobil Vice President accepted employment with a competitor, the company exercised the awards ' forfeiture provisions and determined that it would claw back approximately $5 million in unvested awards. The executive sued, claiming that the provisions amounted to overly broad non-competition clauses and therefore were unenforceable under Texas law. Although ExxonMobil prevailed after a jury trial, an appeals court sided with the executive and determined that, even if the New York law chosen in the restricted stock …show more content…
The court emphasized that ExxonMobil stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, "New York has a well-developed and clearly defined body of law regarding employee stock and incentive programs," and ExxonMobil wanted "uniformity, certainty, and predictability in the application of its [i]ncentive [p]rograms." Notably, the court also emphasized Texas ' role in the larger economy and noted that, "[w]ith Texas now hosting many of the world 's largest corporations, our public policy has shifted from a patriarchal one in which we valued uniform treatment of Texas employees from one employer to the next above all else, to one in which we also value the ability of a company to maintain uniformity in its employment contracts across all employees, whether the individual employees reside in Texas or New
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
and fair one. Many believe it to be the first anti- trust decision in U.S.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352; 111 S. Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991).
Enron corporation, a company establisted at 1985, in Taxes. Until 2001, it becames one of the biggest company in the world, which service for energy, natural gas and telecommunications. In 2000, the disclosure turnover reached $101 billion. Everything is going well for Enron corporation. However, at beginning of 2001, Jim - a good reputation of the short-term investment agency owner. Publicly on Enron’s profit model expressed doubts. He pointed out that alough Enron’s business looks very brilliant, but in fact they cannot really make the amount of moeny like the data shown before. No one can say they can understand how Enron is making moeny. According to the inverstment owner’s analysis, Enron’s profitability in 2000 to 5%, to the beginning
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
GANNETT CO. v. DEPASQUALE. (n.d.).The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1301
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
United States of America. U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 1 Apr. 2003. 13 Nov. 2013
Granitz and Klein, in their analysis of the case, explain Rockefeller’s success in monopolizing the petroleum industry through transportation rather than refining. In contrast to the refining industry, there were only three railroads that transported petrol in 1870. Entry into the transportation stage was difficult because of high fixed costs. Therefore, it was possible to establish a cartel by “collusively agreeing to stabilize individual railroad market shares and by shifting petroleum shipments between railroads to enforce the agreement” (Granitz and Klein 1996, p. 2). The railroads facilitated Standard’s refinery acquisitions and prevented entry by setting high rates to non-Standard refiners. Rockefeller, very shrewdly, cooperated with the railroads t...
Enron’s ride as a company was truly a ride of broken dreams. From being one of the top regional gas pipeline traders, to the nation 's 7th largest corporation, to the world’s largest energy trader; and in a matter of 24 days they fell down into a hole of bankruptcy and dishonor. What took Enron 16-years to grow from $10 billion of assets to $65 billion was all gone in a matter of days. While Enron’s story is one of numbers and transactions it is also a story of human tragedy, a story of major misconduct within a top corporation. As shown in the documentary, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Enron became one of the worlds most acclaimed business ethics case of the century. The documentary explored the good, the bad, and the terrible of a company that was once #1.
...ge James Selna for pretrial proceedings (Gorman, S. 2010). Because the Toyota Corporation may have been unethical in its business practices, the corporation suffers the loss, and now has a faulty reputation.