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 Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) recently held the government liable for...
Read More >
This is the second blog post in our series discussing the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s...
Read More >
Winthrop & Weinstine employment attorneys explain the Minneapolis Wage Theft Prevention Ordinance, s...
Read More >
On July 24, 2019, the Chicago City Council passed an expansive fair workweek ordinance, effective Ju...
Read More >
As we explained in our previous installment of this series, the impact of Covid-19 continues to crea...
Read More >
Under generally accepted Title VII principles, an employer can be held liable when a co-worker haras...
Read More >