If you use agreements for employees (for example.B. severance pay), make sure that employees do not waive claims based on future behavior. Below are six questions that in-house sales and legal teams should ask themselves when conducting transaction negotiations and entering into transaction and release agreements. Normally, the parties to a settlement agreement would be the parties to the contracts at issue or the parties to the ongoing dispute or arbitration. But should the deal apply to someone else? Consider whether you would benefit from a provision that companies with a legal relationship to the parties also agree to the release of rights. For example, you can ensure that the release covers “the parent company, subsidiaries, assignees, assignees, representatives, principals, representatives, directors, senior officers or directors of the shareholders and all persons who act through, under or in collaboration with them”. In certain circumstances, you can also include permission for downstream clients. In Hilton UK Hotels Ltd v. McNaughton EATS/0059/04, an employee stated that she had rights she “believed” she had against her employer in a settlement agreement. However, the EAT found that an employee was unable to pay future duties that she was unaware of when the settlement agreement was concluded. In addition, when a worker draws up a contract on the basis of a future right, the worker must meet the requirements of the applicable legal provision. The difficulty is how much information should be on each potential claim. The Court of Appeal held that a worker had the right to know exactly what he was paying and that settlement agreements had to be adapted to the particular circumstances of the case.
The particular or potential rights that must be covered by a concord agreement must be identified either by a clear general description, such as “unjustified unjustified termination”, “unjustified automatic termination to assert a legal right”, “discrimination on grounds of sex”, or by reference to the section of the law that bases the right (a reference to all claims under the ERA 1996: not sufficiently identifying the regulated claim). The decision also clarifies that best practice would be to specifically identify the right to be settled by providing information on the nature of the allegations and the status under which they are made, or on the basis of the common law of the claim in the form of a brief actual and legal description (e.g.B illegal wage deductions under Part II of the ERA 1996, statutory compensation within the meaning of Article 135 of the ERA 1996 or unjustified termination under Articles 94 and 98A of the ERA 1996). If you are the defendant, make sure that all businesses related to the counterparty are covered by the unlocking of claims in order to broaden the scope of the agreement….