02Nov
COVID-19: High court issues preliminary ruling on interpretation of Material Adverse Effect clause
In a dispute between WEX (Inc.) (“WEX”) and the shareholders (the “Sellers”) of eNett International (Jersey) Limited (“eNett”) and Optal Limited (“Optal”), following an expedited trial on a number of preliminary issues, the High Court’s judgment (Travelport Limited & Others v WEX INC [2020] EWHC 2670 (Comm)) provides helpful guidance on the interpretation of material adverse effect (“MAE”) clauses which are not commonly used in English law acquisition documents. The judgment is also notable for...
By:
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
Related
The California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, like the federal Securities Act of 1933 and Securit...
Read More >
Senior negotiators from the U.S. and China will officially resume trade negotiations today, “with h...
Read More >
Hospital Unlawfully Refused Reasonable Accommodation for Religious Belief and Rescinded Job Offer, F...
Read More >
One of the first decisions issued by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal in 2020 offers an important r...
Read More >
As the pandemic continues to change the economic landscape, financial services companies and investo...
Read More >
Starting January 1, 2020, California employees will have three times as long to file charges allegin...
Read More >