forfeiture clause

• The Enforceability of a Forfeiture-for-Competition clause in an Employment Contract.

A recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision in Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill TSF Asia Pte Ltd [2012] SGCA 42, overturned the Singapore High Court's dec...

• Mondaq Business Briefing
• Nbr. 2012, January 2012

• State v. Shepherd, (Ohio 2008)

sentencing; ex post facto clause; due process clause; forfeiture of error; ineffective assistance of counsel

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Employer Can Enforce Forfeiture Clause, Rules California Supreme Court

State wage law does not prohibit an employer's enforcement of a forfeiture provision in an employee stock purchase program, the California Supreme Court has ruled. The ruling affirms a decision by a state appellate court. (See "Employee stock program doesn't violate state law," Lawyers USA. Feb. 11, 2008.)

• Lawyers USA
• November 04, 2009

• Az Supreme Court Rules Forfeiture Clause May Be Unenforceable Against Departing Law Partner

Professional ethics rules did not prevent a law firm from enforcing a forfeiture provision against a partner who left to work for another firm - but the agreement could still be unenforceable under traditional rules governing non-competes, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled. The plaintiff and several other lawyers formed a law firm in Phoenix, Ariz. The firm's shareholder agreement required a shareholder who was voluntarily withdrawing and thereafter competing in the firm's "geographic area for more than ten hours per week" to "tender his or her share back to the corporation for no compensation.

• Lawyers USA
• September 07, 2006

• A Spectacular Example of Being Out of Trust and Its Consequences

A widely followed case, USA v. Michael Segal and Near North Insurance Brokerage Inc, vividly illustrates that money held in trust can be used for only one purpose-payment of premiums for which it was originally delivered. An Illinois broker and his brokerage were charged with 27 counts of racketeering, mail and wire fraud, making false statements, embezzlement and conspiring to impede the Internal Revenue Service. A jury returned guilty verdicts on 26 counts, but a federal district court granted acquittals on seven of the counts, affirming the convictions on the remaining 19. Finally, the broker argued that the forfeiture violated the excessive fines clause of the US Constitution. The appeals court noted that in US v. Bajakajian (524 US 321, 334 (1998)), the US Supreme Court held that a...

• American Agent & Broker
• Vol. 79 Nbr. 12, December 2007

• Forfeiture Clause Doesn't Violate State Wage Laws, Rules Massachusetts' Highest Court

A forfeiture provision in an employee stock plan doesn't violate state wage laws, Massachusetts' highest court has ruled in answering a certified question from a U.S. District Court. Citigroup and its subsidiaries offer a stock plan for company officers and key employees. The Citigroup plan allows participants to purchase stock at a 25 percent discount from its fair market value. The stock purchases are accomplished through payroll deductions and participants may not sell or transfer shares until after a specific vesting period.

• Lawyers USA
• February 04, 2009

• Eighth Amendment - the excessive fines clause.

The Supreme Court in Austin v. United States determined that the Excessive Fines Clause must apply to civil actions of forfeiture. The decision accords Bill of Rights protection to defendants in civil cases and stipulates that the amount of property defendants are required to forfeit not be in disproportion to the seriousness of their alleged crime. The Excessive Fines Clause was seen as analogous to the clause forbidding cruel and unusual punishment. However, the court did not clarify whether an innocent person can be deprived of property that is deemed illegal.

• Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
• Vol. 84 Nbr. 4, January 1994

• Condron v. Willoughby Hills, (Ohio 2007)

CIVIL - small claims; reimbursement for vacation pay; reimbursement for equipment purchased; forfeiture clause; misjoinder; Civ.R. 21; irrelevant and prejudicial evidence; form of magistrate's decision; general judgment; findings of fact and conclusions of law; Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a) and (b); motion for stay; amendment of appeal; App.R. 3(D); final order; weight of the evidence; record on appeal; App.R. 12(A)(1)(b)

• Ohio Supreme Court

• United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996)

...-345, the Government instituted civil forfeiture proceedings under 21 U. S. C. § 881 (a)(7) agains... and Wren, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the Government from both punishing a def...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Hillary Kunda v. C.R. Bard, Inc., (4th Cir. 2011)

... Assembly "specifically addressed [such] clauses in construction contracts . . . and has unequivoca... held that the Optimum Program's forfeiture provisions were triggered when she was fired witho...

• Federal Circuits