Written by Raymond McKenzie on January 11th, 2010
I often am asked by business clients how to address the circumstances surrounding the transfer of ownership if one of the owners dies, becomes disabled, or whose employment in the business is terminated for-cause? The answer is through the use of language addressing buy-sell situations that are included in an Operating or Shareholder Agreement.
A carefully drafted buy-sell provision will address the buyout of a deceased or disabled owner’s share of the business, usually through the use of the proceeds of life and disability insurance policies taken out by the business on the lives of the owners. A buy-sell provision will also address termination of an owner’s employment with the business for-cause. A sample buy-sell paragraph will read something like the following:
Sale of Shares on Death, Disability or Termination of Employment. If, during the term of this Agreement: a) a Shareholder dies or becomes permanently disabled (meaning the Shareholder becomes unable to carry out his duties as a Director or Officer of the Company for a period of 90 consecutive days or more); or b) a Shareholder who is also an employee of the Company has his or her employment terminated by Company for-cause, then the Company shall buy, and the Shareholder, his estate or the named representative of the Shareholder shall sell, the Shares of said Shareholder to the Company.
A buy-sell provision will go on to address how to arrive at the price at which an owner’s shares may be sold for, as well as whether such price will vary depending on the circumstances surrounding the owner’s departure from the business.
A buy-sell provision will also address an owner’s potential divorce, so as to prevent remaining owners from having to own and operate the business with the spouse or other family member of a former owner.
Every LLC Operating Agreement and Corporate Shareholder Agreement should address the buy-sell provisions referenced above. This will go a long way towards solving many potential disputes involving circumstances associated with the transfer of ownership of a business before they arise.
Posted in business law | No Responses »
Tags: business formation, business incorporation, business law, business start up, buy sell, buy-sell agreement, corporate formation, corporate start up, death of business owner, disability of business owner, limited liablity company, LLC, maryland business, maryland business law, operating agreement, partnership agreement, shareholder agreement, shareholder dispute, shareholders' agreement, stockholder dispute
Written by Raymond McKenzie on December 8th, 2009
Maryland law is well settled that a non-compete must be reasonable in geographic scope and duration in order to be held enforceable. However, Maryland courts will enforce a covenant not-to-compete that does not contain a geographic limitation in certain narrow and limited circumstances. The U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Intelus v. Barton and Medplus, Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d 635 (1998) that every non-compete must be examined to determine reasonableness based on the specific facts at hand, even non-competes that fail to contain a finite geographic limitation. The Intelus court stated:
“Competition unlimited by geography can be expected where the nature of the business concerns computer software and the ability to process information. . . Because of the broad nature of the market in which Intelus operates, a restrictive covenant limited to a narrow geographic area would render the restriction meaningless.”
In determining the reasonableness of a non-compete that does not contain a geographic limitation, Maryland courts will consider the nature of the industry and the national and perhaps global nature of the competition. In Intelus, the court concluded that the restriction was reasonably related and limited to Intelus’s need to protect its good will and client base, and therefore upheld the enforceability of the non-compete.
In Hekimian Labs, a Florida federal court, interpreting Maryland law, found that where “testimony indicated that competition within the business of remote access testing is such that the whole world is its stage” and “that there are only about 20 companies that compete in this business, and they do so on a worldwide basis,” then “to confine the restrictive covenant to a specified geographical area would render the Agreement meaningless.”
The Florida Court concluded that if the agreement did contain a geographical restriction, the offending party would only need to move outside of this restricted area and the damage to the harmed party would be the same. Because of the national and international scope of the competition between the parties, the absence of a specified geographic limitation was reasonably necessary for the protection of the party attempting to enforce the non-compete, and the covenant was upheld.
Posted in business law, franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, business breach of contract, business contract review, business law, business lawsuit, business litigation, confidentiality agreement, corporate litigation, covenant not to compete, franchise agreement, maryland breach of contract, maryland business law, NDA, non disclosure agreement, non solicitation agreement, non-compete, restrictive covenant
Written by Raymond McKenzie on December 8th, 2009
Maryland law permits a party to request injunctive relief from a Maryland federal or state court even when a contract states that all disputes must be referred to arbitration. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held in Brendsel v. Winchester Construction Company, Inc., 898 A.2d 472 (2006) that:
“[A]n interlocutory mechanics’ lien is in the nature of a provisional remedy, not much different than an interlocutory injunction or attachment sought to maintain the status quo so that the arbitration proceeding can have meaning and relevance, and the predominant view throughout the country is that the availability of such remedies by a court is permitted by the Federal and Uniform Arbitration Acts and is not inconsistent with the right to enforce an arbitration agreement.”
In its ruling, the Maryland Court of Appeals focused on the need for courts to have the ability to preserve the status quo by granting injunctive relief while a dispute is sent to arbitration. Without this ability, the Court held, a ruling by an arbitrator could very well be immaterial, as the damage done to a party could by that time be irreparable.
The Maryland Court of Appeals’ holding finds support from the Fourth Circuit in Merril Lynch et al. v. Bradley and Collins, 756 F.2d 1048 (1985):
“Accordingly, we hold that where a dispute is subject to mandatory arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, a district court has the discretion to grant a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending the arbitration of the parties’ dispute if the enjoined conduct would render that process a “hollow formality.” The arbitration process would be a hollow formality where “the arbitral award when rendered could not return the parties substantially to the status quo ante.” Lever Brothers, 554 F.2d at 123.”
Therefore, Maryland courts are permitted to intercede and grant injunctive relief in spite of an arbitration clause where the absence of such relief would cause the arbitration to be nothing more than a “hollow formality.”
This power exists even when a contractual provision states that the parties must refer all disputes to arbitration.
Posted in business law, franchise law | 2 Responses »
Tags: agreement to arbitrate, arbitration, arbitration clause, breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, business breach of contract, business law, business lawsuit, business litigation, confidentiality agreement, corporate litigation, covenant not to compete, franchise agreement, injunctive relief, maryland breach of contract, maryland business law, NDA, non disclosure agreement, non solicitation agreement, preliminary injunction, TRO
Written by Raymond McKenzie on November 18th, 2009
This link http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/start/buyafranchise/index.html
has a wealth of information related to purchasing a franchise, sponsored by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
At the link you will find an overview of what franchising is and some tips on purchasing a franchised business; a Consumer Guide to Purchasing a Franchise; links to the American Franchisee Association (AFA) and International Franchise Association (IFA); two Frequently Asked Question pages; and a Guide on how to purchase an existing franchise from a franchisee.
This is an excellent source for persons seeking information on the world of franchising.
Posted in franchise law | No Responses »
Tags: Buy a Franchise, franchise your business, purchase a franchise, sell your franchised business
Written by Raymond McKenzie on November 17th, 2009
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals in Johnson v. Johnson, interpreting Maryland Code section 14-405, supports the position of the beneficiaries of an A/B Trust to demand an annual accounting of all receipts and disbursements from both Trust A and Trust B. Upon demand by any beneficiary, the Trustee must provide an accounting of both Trusts. The Court held:
Because James has a future interest in the Trust, despite the uncertainty of his actually benefitting from that future interest, we hold that he is entitled to an accounting from the Trustee. Maryland Code (1974, 2001 Repl. Vol.), § 14-405(j)(1) of the Estates and Trust Article (“ET”) lists several categories of people who are permitted to request an accounting of trust property and transactions. The relevant parties included in the list are “The beneficiary or the beneficiary’s legal representative.” ET § 14-405(j)(1)(ii). In response, “(2)The trustee shall provide a written accounting of all trust property and trust transactions for the previous year, or for a longer period if needed for tax purposes, upon request by and at reasonable times to a person authorized in paragraph (1) of this subsection.” ET § 14-405 (j)(2). In In re Clarke’s Will, 198 Md. 266, 81 A.2d 640 (1951), the Court of Appeals expounded on who was permitted to request an accounting. The Court stated that, “[i]f the petitioner has any interest at all he is entitled to invoke the court’s protection.” Id. at 273 (citations omitted). The Court continued by explaining that “[t]he mere fact that future interests are involved will not defeat the power to declare rights . . . .” Id.
When last confronted with this issue, we relied on In re Clarke’s Will, 198 Md. 266, 81 A.2d 640, Austin W. Scott and William Fratcher’s The Law of Trusts, and George Bogert’s Treatise on the Law of Trusts and Trustees and we held that “[t]he fact that a beneficiary has only a future interest . . . does not preclude him from compelling the trustee to account.” Jacob v. Davis, 128 Md. App. 433, 448, 738 A.2d 904 (1999).
With regard to the request for an accounting of Trust A, in addition to Trust B, the Court held:
Alternatively, Catherine contends that if James is entitled to an accounting, it should be limited to Trust B. We disagree and conclude that James can request an accounting of the entire Trust. While his interest in Trust B is more defined, he has an interest in Trust A and how Catherine manages it. While Catherine is living, she has access to both trusts and the management of Trust A potentially affects the proceeds available for Trust B. In short, the trusts are inextricably linked and limiting James’s right to an accounting of Trust B will not satisfy the Trustee’s legal responsibility to him.
We now adopt this reasoning and conclude that a trustor cannot, by including limitations in the Trust instrument, circumscribe the trustee’s duty to account to beneficiaries. This conclusion is in line with recognized Maryland law regarding trusts and accountings.
The relevant portion of Maryland Code § 14-405 – Administration by Trustee, states as follows:
(j) Accountings — In general. —
(1) The following persons in the order listed may request an accounting of trust property and transactions:
(i) The transferor or the transferor’s legal representative;
(ii) The beneficiary or the beneficiary’s legal representative;
(iii) The guardian of the person of the beneficiary;
(iv) An adult member of the beneficiary’s family or that family member’s legal representative; or
(v) A person interested in the trust property or a person interested in the welfare of the beneficiary, either of whom the court determines to have a legitimate interest.
(2) The trustee shall provide a written accounting of all trust property and trust transactions for the previous year, or for a longer period if needed for tax purposes, upon request by and at reasonable times to a person authorized in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
Interestingly, the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and agreed to hear an appeal of the Johnson v. Johnson case. Stay tuned!
Posted in estate management | No Responses »
Tags: A/B Trust, A/B Trust accounting, beneficiary demand accounting, Johnson v. Johnson, Last Will and Testament, Maryland Code § 14-405, request accounting, Trust Accounting, Trust beneficiary, Trustee accounting, Trustee duties, Trustee fiduciary duty, Trustee obligations, Trusts, Trusts and Estates, will, Wills and Trusts
Written by Raymond McKenzie on November 2nd, 2009
Questions
Every franchisee, before purchasing a franchise, receives from the franchisor a Federal Disclosure Document (“FDD”), which includes the franchise agreement that will eventually be executed by the franchisor and franchisee. This article contains five questions every franchisee should ask when reviewing a franchise agreement.
- Minimum Royalty Fees. Does the franchise agreement require the payment by the franchisee of minimum monthly or yearly royalty fees, regardless of the amount of actual revenue the franchisee generates? At the end of a month or year, a franchisee may have to write the franchisor a check to cover the minimum franchise fee if the royalty fee paid by the franchisee fell short of the minimum royalty fee called for in the franchise agreement. This is certainly a fact that all franchisees must be aware of prior to execution of the franchise agreement.
- Termination by Franchisee. Does the franchise agreement allow the franchisee to terminate the agreement without cause, or upon a material breach of the agreement by the franchisor? A franchisee’s right to terminate the franchise agreement is arguably the most important right granted to a franchisee, since a franchisee may be able to terminate an agreement if its business gets into financial trouble or if the franchisor fails to comply with its obligations under the franchise agreement. The right to terminate will also permit a distressed franchisee to avoid the fees and other obligations owed to the franchisor before disaster strikes.
- Post-Termination Non-Competition Covenant. Does the franchise agreement contain a post-termination covenant not-to-compete, and if so, is it reasonable? A post-termination covenant not-to-compete is the franchisor’s attempt to prohibit a franchisee from competing with the franchisor during the period immediately following termination or expiration of the franchise agreement. Courts across the country have held that in order to be enforceable, a non-competition covenant must be reasonable in scope and duration. In other words, a non-compete that prohibits competition for 10 years, or across the entire United States, will most likely be held unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. A franchisee must pay careful attention to the language of a non-compete prior to signing.
- Dispute Resolution. Carefully review the franchise agreement to determine exactly how and where disputes with the franchisor must be resolved. With regard to how, some franchise agreements call for arbitration, others litigation, and some a mix of both procedures. With regard to where, most franchise agreements call for dispute resolution in the home jurisdiction of the franchisor. Some but not all state laws allow the franchisee to sue or arbitrate in its home state, regardless of what the franchise agreement says. Because of the added expense a franchisee must bear in the event of a dispute being held in a place other than the franchisee’s home state, a franchisee whose state does not add such a protection must be aware of this fact and possibly add language allowing the franchisee to sue or arbitrate in its home state.
- Territory. Some franchise agreements grant a franchisee an “exclusive” territory. This means that the franchisee is protected from competition from other franchisees and the franchisor as well inside this exclusive territory. Most franchisees view a protected territory as a must, believing that such market protection will allow the franchisee’s business to flourish. With that in mind, read the “Territory” section carefully in order to determine exactly what is being granted. Can the franchisor compete with the franchisee in the territory? Are there development or sales quotas that must be met in order to retain exclusive territory status? Can supermarkets or other wholesalers compete with the franchisee? These and other questions must be answered to gain a complete understanding of the issue.
Interested in Learning More? Have Questions?
Contact Raymond McKenzie at 301-330-6790 or ray@mckenzie-legal.com
Posted in franchise law | 5 Responses »
Tags: franchise, franchisee
Written by Raymond McKenzie on October 29th, 2009
Mona Electric v. Truland, 193 F. Supp. 2d 874 (2002), as well as the appeal of that case, provide support for the position that a terminated employee who executed a non-solicitation provision when hired, but which did not contain an accompanying non-compete covenant, will not be in violation of the non-solicitation agreement if the clients and customers of the employee’s former place of business, and not the employee himself, initiate contact with the former employee for the purpose of conducting business. The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held:
“there is no evidence that Gerardi violated the Agreement by “soliciting” Mona’s customers. Truland hired Gerardi as a Service Account Manager. Gerardi’s responsibilities in this new position include preparing estimates and working in the field. A part of Gerardi’s position at Truland is handling customer solicitation calls. In the electrical contracting field, customers often solicit bids from the electrical contractors. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that Gerardi has initiated calls to customers during his employment at Truland. Rather, the evidence is that Gerardi responded to customer calls to Truland for bids. Gerardi’s acts of responding to customers who solicited him for bids clearly do not violate the Agreement. Gerardi did not sign an agreement that prohibited him from competing with Mona, he signed an agreement that precisely prohibited his “solicitation” of Plaintiff’s customers. Plaintiff asserts that the Agreement prevents Gerardi from submitting estimates to customers who call him to request bids. This would turn the non-solicitation agreement into a non-competition agreement, and under the unambiguous terms of terms of the Agreement, only solicitation of Mona’s customer’s is prohibited. Thus, were the Court to find the Agreement valid, no evidence has been presented in this case that Gerardi violated the terms of the Agreement, and summary judgment should be granted for the Defendant.” Mona Electric v. Truland, 193 F. Supp. 2d 874 (2002).
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Maryland law, upheld the lower court’s findings:
“Despite Mona’s assertion to the contrary, the district court held and we agree that the plain meaning of “solicit” requires the initiation of contact. (J.A. at 135.) Therefore, in order to violate the nonsolicitation agreement, Gerardi must initiate contact with Mona’s customers. Mona argues that Gerardi solicited when he submitted estimates to Mona’s customers. However, this does not fall within the plain meaning of “solicit.” If Mona intended to prevent Gerardi from conducting business with its customers it could have easily stated that in the agreement. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Mona, there is no evidence that Gerardi solicited Mona’s customers. Therefore, summary judgment was proper and the district court is affirmed.” Mona Electric v. Truland, 56 Fed. Appx. 108 (2003). [On appeal]
Conclusion
The Mona case and its appeal give substantial support to the position that: 1) if an employee executed only a non-solicitation agreement and not a covenant not-to-compete; and 2) because Maryland courts will interpret “solicitation” as requiring some action on the employee’s behalf to initiate contact, then by itself, the employer would fail in its attempt to prevent the former employee from doing business with the business’ clients and customers, PROVIDED that the business cannot show that the employee actively solicited those customers. The employee is barred from soliciting, ie. from taking any action to initiate contact in order to gain business. Courts will strictly construe this requirement and delve into the actual conduct of the employee in order to determine whether the employee actually “solicited” customers.
Posted in business law | 1 Response »
Tags: breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, business breach of contract, business contract review, business law, business lawsuit, business litigation, confidentiality agreement, corporate litigation, covenant not to compete, maryland breach of contract, maryland business, maryland business law, NDA, non disclosure agreement, non solicitation agreement
Written by Raymond McKenzie on September 14th, 2009
Need an Attorney to help your Maryland or DC business? Contact Raymond McKenzie at 301-330-6790 or ray@mckenzie-legal.com
Limited Liability
Limited liability companies (“LLCs”) have become increasingly popular over the past several years as alternatives to corporations because they legally enjoy the same limited liability advantages as corporations, while also providing certain tax benefits that not all corporations do. LLCs, corporations, and most partnerships shield their owners from liability for the actions of the entity. So regardless of the corporate form, owners of these entities will rarely be held liable for the debts and other actions taken by the corporation.
The reason that LLC’s have increased in popularity is because members of an LLC garner pass-through tax advantages similar to what partners receive in a partnership. While owners of a corporation face “double-taxation,” first at the net income of the corporation and second at the individual shareholder level on the dividends the shareholders receive, LLC members are taxed only once, at the individual level on the profits they receive. With all else being equal, this tax savings is the main reason that a start-up entity will choose to go the LLC route as opposed to the corporation route.
In most other respects, LLCs are similar in nature to corporations. An LLC is suitable for one or several owners, called “members.” As a partnership agreement governs the partners’ relationship and a shareholders’ agreement governs the shareholders in a corporation, a properly drafted LLC operating agreement sets out the rights, duties, obligations and remedies of the LLC’s members.
A managing member, designated in the operating agreement, runs the day to day operations of the LLC, and there can be more than one managing member if desired by the members. LLCs may, but are not required to, appoint officers of the LLC. Members of an LLC may consist of individuals, corporations, other LLCs, or a mixture of each.
Persons desiring to form an LLC in Maryland can search the Maryland SDAT website for name availability at www.sdatcert3.resiusa.org/ucc-charter.
After determining whether a name is available, forms for an LLC’s Articles of Organization can be found at www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/sdatforms.html#entity.
Just remember to consult an experienced Maryland business attorney before you get started.
Need an Attorney to help your Maryland or DC business? Contact Raymond McKenzie at 301-330-6790 or ray@mckenzie-legal.com
Posted in business law | No Responses »
Tags: benefits of LLC, business contract review, business formation, business incorporation, business name registration, business start up, corporate bylaws, corporate formation, corporate start up, limited liablity company, LLC, maryland business, maryland business law, operating agreement, partnership agreement, shareholder agreement, shareholders' agreement
Written by Raymond McKenzie on August 3rd, 2009
Need an Attorney to help your Maryland or DC business? Contact Raymond McKenzie at 301-330-6790 or ray@mckenzie-legal.com
Shareholders
A Maryland corporation need only file Articles of Incorporation with the Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation in order be lawfully incorporated. Once formed, though, it is advisable that every Maryland corporation consult with a Maryland business attorney to discuss the drafting of a set of Bylaws, as well as a shareholders’ agreement.
Maryland law mandates that each Maryland corporation must have a set of Bylaws that lay out the procedures concerning the governance of the corporation. A Maryland corporation’s Bylaws may contain any provision not inconsistent with law or the charter of the corporation for the regulation and management of the affairs of the corporation.
A Maryland corporation’s Bylaws usually set out the powers, duties, rights and obligations of its directors and officers, including how many directors the corporation may have, the procedure for calling shareholder and Board of Director meetings, how and where corporate records are to be maintained, stockholder reports, voting and proxy procedures, how stock may be transferred, how directors are elected and removed, how officers are appointed and removed, as well as numerous other matters related to the corporation as a whole.
A Maryland corporation may, but is not required to, have a shareholders’ agreement. A shareholders’ agreement is an agreement between the stockholders of a corporation that governs the rights and obligations of the shareholders. First and foremost, a shareholders’ agreement will state the individual equity in the corporation as held by the shareholders. A shareholders’ agreement typically states how new shares of stock are issued, and addresses issues surrounding restrictions on stock repurchase and transfer, including how stockholders of a company may sell their shares, what happens to the shares upon the death or disability of a shareholder, whether other shareholders have the right to purchase another shareholder’s stock upon death or disability, what procedures are used in order to assign value to stock shares, and what happens to stock upon the breach of a shareholder agreement by a stockholder.
A shareholders’ agreement will also govern how the day-to-day operations of the company are managed, how a Board of Directors will be elected and terminated, what decisions require majority, super-majority or unanimous consent of the shareholders, how the Board will appoint Officers of the corporation.
The resolution of shareholder disputes through mediation, arbitration or litigation, or a combination thereof, may also be included in a shareholders agreement, as well as what law governs any dispute.
When you are in the start up and formation stages of your new business, consult with your business attorney regarding the drafting of Bylaws and a shareholders’ agreement.
Need an Attorney to help your Maryland or DC business? Contact Raymond McKenzie at 301-330-6790 or ray@mckenzie-legal.com
Posted in business law | No Responses »
Tags: business contract review, business formation, business incorporation, business law, business start up, corporate bylaws, corporate formation, corporate litigation, corporate start up, maryland business, maryland business law, shareholder agreement, shareholder dispute, shareholders' agreement, stockholder dispute
Written by Raymond McKenzie on July 23rd, 2009
Need an Attorney to help your Maryland or DC business? Contact Raymond McKenzie at 301-330-6790 or ray@mckenzie-legal.com
Breach of Contract
If you are forced to file suit in Maryland for breach of contract, do not let a poorly drafted contract hurt your chance of prevailing. Do not lose a case that you should win simply because of faulty contract language, language that could have been avoided had you retained an experienced Maryland business attorney to assist.
A contract drafted in Maryland with little or no input from a Maryland corporate lawyer can fail to include several necessary components that help to make a contract legally enforceable. These deficiencies can be fatal to your business’s chance of prevailing in a lawsuit. As a result, make sure that an experienced Maryland business attorney reviews your contracts, and that such contracts address, at minimum, the following five points:
1. Jurisdiction: If you want the ability to sue in Maryland courts, your contract must contain language where the parties submit to the jurisdiction of Maryland state and/or federal courts. This language allows you to sue a business in Maryland courts, even if the company is not incorporated in, or have offices in, Maryland. Without this language in your contract, you will most likely be forced to sue the corporation in its home state. Suing out of state can be significantly more expensive and time consuming.
2. Choice of Law: A Maryland choice of law provision states Maryland law will be used to decide the dispute. Many non-lawyers confuse choice of law with jurisdiction, and interpret the phrase “Maryland law will govern this contract” to mean that a dispute has to be heard in Maryland. That is not the case. Rather, this clause simply means that regardless of where a dispute is heard, whether in Maryland Circuit Court or Virginia or anywhere else, Maryland law will be used to decide the matter.
3. Non-compete and non-solicitation clauses: Do you want to prohibit the other party from competing with you entirely, or just stop them from soliciting your clients? If the former, then you are in need of a non-compete clause, which must be limited in geographic scope, limited in duration, and narrowly defined to protect only the interests of your business in order to be enforceable. Maryland courts will typically enforce reasonable non-competes. However, a non-compete that overreaches will often be struck down. If the latter, then you need a non-solicitation agreement, which allows the other party to compete with you, provided they do not solicit your current or former clients. A non-solicitation clause need not have geographic or time limitations so long as it only forbids the solicitation of your clients by the other party.
4. Default and Termination provisions: Make sure that your contract’s default and termination provisions are clear with regard to: a) what breaches may be cured and what breaches cannot be; b) what the time period exists for any cure; and c) whether amounts due over the life of the contract still owed even if the contract is terminated.
5. Dispute Resolution: Choose the type of dispute resolution system that you feel best fits your business. Mediation, arbitration and litigation are options, and they can be used in compliment of one another. Regardless of what method of dispute resolutions you choose, always allow your business the option of filing for emergency injunctive relief in Maryland court when necessary to avoid irreparable injury to your business.
Need an Attorney to help your Maryland or DC business? Contact Raymond McKenzie at 301-330-6790 or ray@mckenzie-legal.com
Posted in business law | No Responses »
Tags: breach of contract case, breach of contract lawsuit, business breach of contract, business contract review, business law, business lawsuit, business litigation, corporate litigation, covenant not to compete, maryland breach of contract, maryland business, maryland business law, non solicitation agreement
Raymond McKenzie is a corporate and franchise attorney in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
Subscribe in an RSS reader
