The injunctive relief clause is a contractual provision that allows a party to seek a court-ordered injunction to prevent the other party from engaging in specific actions that could cause irreparable harm. This clause is often included to protect intellectual property, confidentiality, or other critical interests by quickly addressing potential breaches or violations through judicial intervention.
A ruling on preliminary or permanent injunctive relief also depends upon the specific facts and circumstances before a court. We further note that we are not aware of any reported controlling judicial precedents that are directly on point. Our analysis therefore necessarily represents a reasoned application of the pertinent constitutional and statutory provisions informed by judicial decisions involving similar or analogous circumstances. Moreover, the application of equitable principles, including the determination whether to grant or deny preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, is subject to the discretion of the court being asked to grant such relief.
Federal law would govern an action for injunctive relief brought in a federal court. Applicable state law would govern an action for injunctive relief brought in a state court. Our opinion is limited to federal law and thus is limited to an action for injunctive relief brought in a federal court with respect to a claim under the Contract Clause.
Injunctive Relief; Expedited Discovery (a) In the event that Participant breaches or threatens to breach, or the Company reasonably believes Participant is about to breach, any of the restrictive covenants in this RC Agreement, the Company will be entitled to injunctive relief, in addition to any other rights or remedies to which the Company may be entitled in law or equity. Participant agrees that the Company will suffer immediate and irreparable harm and that money damages will not be adequate to compensate the Company or to preserve the status quo. Therefore, Participant consents to the issuance of a temporary restraining order and other injunctive relief necessary to enforce this RC Agreement. (b) Participant agrees that the duration of any injunction shall be increased in an amount equal to any period of time during which Participant failed to comply with the covenants contained in this RC Agreement. (c) Participant and the Company agree that any application for temporary restraining order and/or temporary or preliminary injunctive relief shall be adjudicated exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction, even if Participant and the Company are parties to an arbitration agreement that otherwise includes disputes under this RC Agreement. Participant agrees that the injunctive relief to which Participant consents hereinabove, under the circumstances addressed in this section, shall be granted by a A-4 court of competent jurisdiction pending arbitration on the merits in order to preserve the status quo pending such arbitration.
Participant agrees that the injunctive relief to which Participant consents hereinabove, under the circumstances addressed in this section, shall be granted by a court of competent jurisdiction pending arbitration on the merits in order to preserve the status quo pending such arbitration.
Ecopetrol opposes to the preliminary injunctive relief requested in a public action (“Acción Popular”) filed against the sale of ISA Ecopetrol S.A. (BVC: Ecopetrol; NYSE: EC) hereby reports that on July 28, 2021, it filed a statement in opposition to the preliminary injunctive relief requested within a public action (acción popular) to which it was named as defendant by means of a judicial order notified on July 21, 2021. The acción popular is being processed by the First Section of the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca and was filed by Fundación Defensa de la Información Legal y Oportunidad – Dilo Colombia. The claimant is requesting the Court to issue a preliminary injunctive relief measure to cause the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit and Ecopetrol "... to refrain from continuing the process to sell the Nation's share ownership in ISA to Ecopetrol ..." Ecopetrol opposes to the injunctive relief on the grounds that the claim has no legal basis. In its statement, Ecopetrol exposes the technical, financial, and legal arguments that show that Fundación Dilo Colombia did not comply with the legal requirements for said preliminary injunctive relief measure to be granted. In addition, Ecopetrol explained that the potential sale of the Nation’s ownership in ISA is allowed by Colombian legislation, maximizes benefits to the Nation and to Ecopetrol, and does not threaten or violate any of the collective rights invoked by the claimant. Ecopetrol will continue to defend the legality of the potential ISA transaction in all stages of the judicial process described herein.
PUBLIC INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTS. If you or we seek public injunctive relief as a remedy for any Claim against one another (a “Public Injunctive Relief Request,”) you and we agree that Public Injunctive Relief Request cannot be arbitrated. Instead, that Public Injunctive Relief Request shall be adjudicated by a court after all other Claims to be decided in arbitration under this Arbitration Agreement are resolved in arbitration. You and we agree to jointly request that the court stay the Public Injunctive Relief request until after the remaining Claims have been finally resolved in arbitration, and that the parties will only seek to lift the stay and request that the court resolve the Public Injunctive Relief Request if an arbitrator finds that one of them is liable for a Claim for which public injunctive relief is an available remedy. The enforceability, validity and effect of this paragraph (M) shall be determined exclusively by a court, and not by the administrator or any arbitrator.
Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is within the discretion of the district court; on appeal, the district court’s decision is reviewable only for abuse of discretion.84 In the context of an alleged constitutional violation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (which includes federal district courts in Michigan) has stated that “a party is entitled to a permanent injunction if it can establish that it suffered a constitutional violation and will suffer ‘continuing irreparable injury’ for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
whether a federal court would grant preliminary injunctive relief under federal law to prevent, prior to trial and decision on the merits, implementation of Legislative Action that alters, impairs or reduces the value of the Securitization Property or the Securitization Charges (“Preliminary Injunctive Relief”);
On December 28, 2020, Shiva Stein, an alleged stockholder of BioTelemetry, filed a lawsuit against BioTelemetry and its directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Stein v. BioTelemetry, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01774. The complaint alleges that BioTelemetry and its directors violated federal securities laws by filing a materially incomplete and misleading Solicitation Statement on BioTelemetry’s Schedule 14D-9. The complaint seeks, among other things, (1) injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Offer and the Merger unless and until the alleged omitted material information has been disclosed; (2) rescission of the Merger Agreement or any of its terms to the extent implemented rescissory damages; (3) damages; (4) an award of plaintiffs’ expenses and attorneys’ fees; and (5) other equitable relief.
Permanent Injunctive Relief. Texas law provides that a “writ of injunction may be granted if: (1) the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded and all or part of the relief requires the restraint of some act prejudicial to the applicant . . . (3) the applicant is entitled to a writ of injunction under the principles of equity and the statutes of this state relating to injunctions . . . or (5) irreparable injury to real or personal property is threatened, irrespective of any remedy at law.”60. Generally, a party requesting injunctive relief must show “the existence of a wrongful act, the existence of imminent harm, the existence of irreparable injury, and the absence of an adequate remedy at law.”61 f legislation were found to unconstitutionally impair the obligation of contracts, then the Bondholders could likely obtain an injunction prohibiting state officials from enforcing such legislation.62 This would also likely be the case if the PUCT were to take action found to impair the obligation of contracts in a manner inconsistent with current statutory authorization. Texas courts will grant injunctive relief when a government official acts in a way that exceeds constitutional or statutory authority.63
Injunctive relief is a legal remedy in the form of a court order that compels an individual or entity to do or refrain from specific actions. Unlike monetary damages, which aim to compensate for a loss, injunctive relief seeks to prevent future harm by either enforcing or prohibiting certain behaviors. Courts use this remedy when monetary compensation is insufficient to resolve the issue or prevent irreparable damage.
Injunctive relief is appropriate in situations where immediate intervention is necessary to prevent imminent harm or to maintain the status quo while a legal issue is adjudicated. It can be sought in a variety of legal contexts, including:
The party seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate that:
When writing a request for injunctive relief, or drafting a motion for an injunction, it’s important to clearly articulate your case. The document should include:
Contracts that often contain provisions for injunctive relief include those where breaches could result in irreparable harm not easily compensated by money. Common examples include:
These provisions are generally included to provide a legal avenue for rapid response in the event of a breach or threatened breach of the contract, ensuring that the aggrieved party can protect their interests without resorting to lengthy litigation processes.
Try our AI contract analysis and extract important clauses and information from existing contracts.
< <
Dive deeper into the world of clauses and learn more about these other clauses that are used in real contracts.
An insuring agreement is a fundamental component of an insurance policy that outlines the scope of coverage provided by the insurer, including the types of risks or perils that are covered, the parties involved, and the conditions under which a claim can be made. It serves as the foundation of the policy, detailing the insurer's obligation to indemnify the policyholder for losses incurred from specified events.
An integration clause, also known as a merger clause, ensures that the written contract represents the complete and final agreement between the parties by superseding all prior negotiations, discussions, or agreements, whether written or oral. This clause prevents any party from claiming that external statements or documents should be considered part of the agreement, thus providing clarity and reducing potential disputes.
Intellectual property indemnification is a contractual provision where one party agrees to compensate the other for any losses or damages arising from third-party claims of intellectual property infringement. This clause aims to protect the indemnified party from legal liabilities related to the use, production, or distribution of potentially infringing intellectual property.
Fill out the form and we will get in touch with you to give you a personal, customized demo of fynk.
Greetings!
I'm Markus, co-founder of fynk. After you've submitted the form, I'll swiftly get in touch with you.
Also, right after you submit your details, you can pick a time that works best for you for our meeting.
