What the Delaware McDonald's Decision Means for Corporate Officers and Compliance Programs
One Month to a More Effective Compliance Program with Boards - Day 1 - Legal Requirements of the Board Regarding Compliance
Nonprofit Quick Tips: Secretary of State Filings in California and Delaware
Compliance into the Weeds - McDonald’s and Duty of Corporate Officer Oversight
A Compliance Officer Turned Board Member's Advice
Welcome to the July 2025 edition of the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter, a publication containing updates about legal developments in the United States that may be noteworthy to our clients and other leaders in the Japanese...more
The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Sunder Energy, LLV v. Jackson, No. 455, 2023, 2024 Del. LEXIS 407 (December 10, 2024) reaffirmed the courts’ limited willingness to modify or “blue-pencil” overbroad restrictive...more
On December 18, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court (the “Court”) held in LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge that forfeiture-for-competition provisions in employee equity award agreements are enforceable in certain contexts. This article...more
In this issue of Employment Flash: the new DOL rule on independent contractors, SCOTUS’s unanimous Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower ruling, plus labor law developments in California, Delaware, D.C., New York, the EU, Germany and...more
In Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie, No. 162, 2023, 2024 WL 315193 (Del. Jan. 29, 2024), the Delaware Supreme Court held enforceable a “forfeiture for competition” provision in a limited partnership agreement, upholding...more
Sunder Energy, LLC recently sought to enforce a non-compete agreement against its former head of sales in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 2023 WL 8166517. Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster...more