Xxxxxxxxx & Co. 1985 OK 38, ¶ 8, 000 X.0x 000, 528-529. 3 Id. 4 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 103; Xxxxx x. Xxxxxx Real Estate, 2009 OK CIV APP 47, ¶ 9. 5 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 102(15). 6 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 109. 7 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 102(11). 8 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 102(5). 9 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 §§ 123, 124, 128. 10 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 117. 11 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 102(10) & (3). 12 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 110. 13 Okla. Stat. tit. 41 § 111(C). terminated through the termination procedures outlined in the ORLTA.14 In all terminations, the parties are required to act in good faith.15 The ORTLA provides: Except as otherwise provided in this act, whenever either party to a rental agreement rightfully elects to terminate, the duties of each party under the rental agreement shall cease and be determined upon the effective date of said termination, and the parties shall thereupon discharge any remaining obligations under this act as soon as practicable.
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. Xxx.m.b.H. ("Woolworth Austria") Linz, Austria, which has a registered share capital of ATS 70,000,000.00 (Austrian Shilling seventy million) Woolworth Austria is a wholly owned subsidiary of the seller;
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. 558 A.2d 1049 (Del. Ch. 1988); IN RE XXXXX FARMS CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, SUPRA note 16. XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX & XXXXXXXX LETTERHEAD Company to the effect that any person or group is interested in acquiring the Company's shares other than for investment purposes. In our view, the Board, after the presentations made today by the legal and investment banking experts, will be in a reasonable position to make final determinations and a decision on authorizing the Agreement.
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. The Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx Itasca, Illinois 60143-3141 Attention: General Counsel Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Telecopy: (000) 000-0000 Each such notice, request or other communication shall be effective (i) if given by telecopier, when such telecopy is transmitted to the telecopier number specified in this Section 13.8 or on the signature pages hereof and a confirmation of receipt of such telecopy has been received by the sender, (ii) if given by courier, when delivered, (iii) if given by mail, three business days after such communication is deposited in the mail, registered with return receipt requested, addressed as aforesaid or (iv) if given by any other means, when delivered at the addresses specified in this Section 13.8 or on the signature pages hereof; provided that any notice given pursuant to Section 1 hereof shall be effective only upon receipt.
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. By: /s/ Jxxx X. Xxxxxx -------------------------- Name: Jxxx X. Xxxxxx Title: Vice President WOOLWORTH CORPORATION By: /s/ Jxxx X. Xxxxxx ------------------------------ - Name: Jxxx X. Xxxxxx Title: Vice President PHARMHOUSE CORP. By: /s/ Mxxxxx X. Xxxxx ------------------------------ - Name: Mxxxxx X. Xxxxx Title: Executive Vice President RX REALTY CORP. By: /s/ Mxxxxx X. Xxxxx ------------------------------ - Name: Mxxxxx X. Xxxxx Title: Executive Vice President
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. Announces
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. WASB Employee Opinion Survey or contact the WASB at 000-000-0000.
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. (1987), the Nebraska Supreme Court announced as a general rule that “a covenant not to compete in an employment contract may be valid only if it restricts the former employee from ... soliciting the former employer’s clients or accounts with whom the former employee actually did business and has personal contact.” North Carolina has adopted a “look-back” rule when a noncompetition agreement includes customers of the employer that an employee is not serving at the time of termination but has served in the past. Thus, if a noncompete agreement prevents an employee from serving customers for a period of 3 years after termination and it applies to any customer served by the employee within the 2 years prior to termination, North Carolina considers the ac- tual time restriction to be 5 years (Professional Liability Consultants, Inc. x. Xxxx, 1996). Other states take a more relaxed approach allowing noncompetition restrictions that protect more than just the customers with whom the employee had contacts (cf. Xxxxx x. Xxxxx, 1987). Similarly, courts are reluctant to allow noncompetition agreements that prevent an employee from working in any position for a competitor or that prohibit an employee from engaging in a business that is not directly competitive with the employer’s business. Thus, in Xxxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx (1971), the New York Court of Appeals upheld a noncompetition agreement that prevented an oral surgeon from engaging in the practice of oral surgery within a five-county area of New York, but it refused to enforce that part of the noncompete that would have prevented the oral surgeon from practicing dentistry. The employer did not practice dentistry and thus the former employee would not be directly competing with him. Although Virginia has allowed covenants restricting employees from engaging in the “same” or “similar” business,” the Virginia Supreme Court recently invalidated a noncompetition agreement that defined a “similar” business too broadly. In Motion Control Systems, Inc. v. East (2001), Motion Control designed and manufactured brushless motors. Xxxxxxx Xxxx was part of the management team of Motion Control Systems with access to customer lists and new product developments. He agreed not to work for any similar business, which was defined as “any business that designs, manufactures, sells or distributes motors, motor drives, or motor controls.” Because the noncompete agreement would prohibit East from working in a business that sold any type ...
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. 1985 OK 38, ¶ 8, 000 X.0x 000, 528-529. 3 Id.
Xxxxxxxxx & Co. Attention:
