We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 982

Citigroup’s $7 billion settlement allows them to “focus on the future”
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • July 14 2014

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Citigroup announced today that Citigroup will pay $7 billion to settle a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ


Coinye West will not take over Bitcoin’s reign on cryptocurrency
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • August 26 2014

There's exciting news in the world of cryptocurrency, the exchange medium that uses cryptography to secure the transactions and control the creation


California stands firm in rejecting non-compete
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • August 18 2008

With the economy down, many well-known employers in virtually every industry across the country have increased their efforts to protect their customer relationships, market share, and confidential business information by bringing no-compete andor trade secret misappropriation litigation against former employees and competitors


Decision on whether to block DOL salary basis increase to $47,476 per year expected by Nov. 22
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • November 17 2016

After a hearing in the Eastern District of Texas on a lawsuit by 21 states to enjoin the Department of Labor’s scheduled increase of the minimum


Important update regarding the DOL’S Persuader Rule: Texas District Court issued a permanent, nationwide injunction blocking it
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • November 17 2016

When we last reported on the status of the U.S. Department of Labor’s controversial “Persuader Rule,” it was to inform you that on June 27, 2016, a


Federal judge rejects the proposed settlement for tech companies who allegedly violated antitrust law by agreeing not to solicit each other’s employees
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • August 18 2014

We previously discussed here the antitrust case involving several high-tech companies who allegedly entered into bilateral agreements in which they


Some clarity: The Supreme Court of Ohio definitively decides procedure for abatement of substantial aggravation conditions
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2017

In its recent decision, Clendenin v. Girl Scouts of W. Ohio, the Supreme Court of Ohio definitively decided that an Industrial Commission order


ESOP boundaries: plan design versus fiduciary function
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • July 21 2014

Greeting from Northeast Ohio. We have LeBron James coming home, the Republican National Convention, and something almost as exciting: thoughts about


ERISA plan service provider avoids fiduciary statuswhat it means for service providers and plan sponsors
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • November 14 2014

A recent Third Circuit decision (Santomenno v. John Hancock, et. al.) has been described as a win for service providers to ERISA plans. It certainly


2015 is lurking: are your health and welfare and cafeteria plans up-to-date?
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • November 21 2014

The snow falling outside my window right now is a stark reminder that the end of 2014 is right around the corner. With 2015 approaching, employers