of dealing altered that understanding. Although there was conflicting testimony regarding whether or not the provision regarding letters of intent had been waived, there is no doubt that the letter clearly states that the agreement is conditioned upon Baker’s performance, which the trial court found to be unsatisfactory. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court found that “[t]he debtor rarely paid Telelect on time, repeatedly refused to provide Telelect with promised financial data, and jeopardized Teleleet’s reputation in the market by not timely delivering its finished product.” In re JGB Industries, Inc. v. Simon-Telelect, Inc., Adv. Proc. No. 96-3046 at 14 (Bankr.E.D.Va. May 220, 1236 (E.D.Va.1996); and Swengler v. ITT Corp. Electro-Optical Div., 993 F.2d 1063, 1070 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>)). The Court declines to decide whether
holding enforceable employee manual that was distributed to all employees holding that an employees communications to general counsel requesting legal advice remained confidential even though they were distributed to other employees involved in the matter because such limited dissemination does not amount to a breach of confidentiality in the corporate attorneyclient context holding that no implied contract arises from policy manuals which are not generally distributed to employees but which are instead provided only upon request holding that internal policy memorandum not generally distributed to employees did not create an implied condition to an employees contract even though that employee had requested an obtained a copy holding as a matter of law that the existence of an expense reimbursement policy alone did not create an implied contract limiting the employers right to terminate an employee atwill