[Revised 8:00 a.m. EDT, May 13, 2012, prompted by Mark Anderson’s comment and a good night’s sleep.] Consider the following, culled from the SEC’s EDGAR system: The Parties believe that the provisions of this Agreement are in compliance with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”), as presently in effect, if and to … Read More
Behold commit to used to express obligations: each of the Guarantors hereby … commits to make a contribution to such Guarantor’s capital in an amount at least equal to The Employee commits to perform his/her duties pursuant to this Agreement on full time basis and not to engage in any other endeavors without the express permission of the Board of Directors of the … Read More
[Updated 13 September 2016] I recently picked up a useful tip from an unlikely source—one of my own webcasts. Osgoode Professional Development has been running my “Drafting Clearer Contracts” webcasts for a Canadian audience, and I’ve been on hand at the end of each webcast to answer any questions. I joined a bit early the webcast on categories of contract … Read More
[Updated March 2, 2015: For my most recent take on this subject, see this article.] I’ve previously written in this blog about why I recommend that one use shall in a disciplined manner rather than throw it under a bus. Discussion of this topic features prominently in chapter 2 of MSCD, as well as in my October 2007 NYLJ article. … Read More
Reader Mike told me about IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2007). I’m delighted that he did, because it’s yet another case that I can point to in making the argument that to control your drafting you need to clearly distinguish one category of contract language from another. IpVenture owns and licenses patents on inventions relating … Read More
