In a landmark ruling of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that an employer’s non-competition covenant, which included the employee’s pledge not to challenge the covenant for inadequate consideration, is unenforceable unless it is accompanied by a change in job status or some other significant benefit. Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., Case No. 3-40-2015 (Nov. 18, … Continue Reading
In Seyfarth’s sixth installment, attorneys Michael Baniak and Paul Freehling discussed the significant statutory changes to several jurisdictions’ laws regarding trade secrets and restrictive covenants and pending legislation proposed in additional jurisdictions over … Continue Reading
Spock: “I am a [lawyer], sir. We embrace technicalities.”
Arbitration is no longer the final frontier. Instead, arbitration is often the first and only forum for resolving disputes. The business community has embraced arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution, but sophisticated parties still maintain a preference favoring court resolution … Continue Reading
A preliminary injunction was entered against a fired executive of a roofer who, immediately after he was discharged, went to work for an alleged competitor. The district court held, and the Seventh Circuit agreed, that his non-compete and non-solicit agreements were overbroad and confusing, but that some injunctive relief nonetheless was warranted in this case. Turnell v. CentiMark Corp., … Continue Reading
Three very recent decisions reflect the irreconcilable division of judicial authority regarding the adequacy of at-will employment as the sole consideration for an otherwise valid non-compete. Compare (a) Standard Register Co. v. Keala, No. 14-00291 (D. Haw., June 8, 2015) (adequate under Hawaii law) (“majority rule”), with (b) Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes, Inc., Nos. 13-11297 and 14-10365 … Continue Reading
California courts generally favor forum selection clauses entered into freely by parties and where enforcement is not unreasonable. This general principle is true even if the forum selection clause is “mandatory” and requires a party to litigate its dispute exclusively in the designated forum. The party opposing enforcement of a forum selection … Continue Reading
Last summer was a busy time for legislators in Massachusetts mulling over non-compete reform. As we reported here and here, several competing bills were in play as the legislative session drew to a close, including a compromise bill that was passed in the state Senate but ultimately failed to advance in the House. You may even recall that then-Governor … Continue Reading
Nationally, our Trade Secrets practice retained its position in Tier 2. For the second year in a row, our practice has been named to the shortlist for best trade secrets practice in the U.S., and we are … Continue Reading
Unwelcome news for charities concerned with donor confidentiality
A recent court ruling1 upheld the position of the California Attorney General (AG) requiring that charities located or operating in California provide a copy of their unredacted Form 990 Schedule B, including the names, addresses and contribution amounts for all donors … Continue Reading
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. Central, in the fourth installment of our 2015 Trade Secret Webinars, Seyfarth attorneys John Tomaszewski, Eric Barton and Joshua Salinas will address the relationship between trade secrets, social media, and privacy.
The Seyfarth panel will specifically address the following topics:Defining, understanding, and protecting trade secrets in social media, including a deeper… Continue Reading
In a post-script to the SEC’s April 1 cease and desist order penalizing KBR, Inc. for a confidentiality statement that failed to carve out protected federal whistleblower complaints (our alert on it here), SEC Office of the Whistleblower Chief Sean McKessy today made additional comments that suggest public companies as well as private companies that … Continue Reading
Delaware has long been one of the jurisdictions most friendly to the interests of corporations and is the state of incorporation for a significant majority of corporations. While that trend does not seem likely to change, a new Delaware Chancery Court decision should give pause to choice of law decisions of Delaware … Continue Reading
Status of the case. A multi-count complaint filed in the D.C. District Court charged two former employees of the plaintiff with breaches of contract and tort violations. The defendants moved to dismiss. The court held that some of the … Continue Reading
On Tuesday, March 10th at 12:00 p.m. central, in the second installment of our 2015 Trade Secret Webinars, Seyfarth attorneys Scott Humphrey, Jason Stiehl and James Yu will focus on trade secret and client relationship considerations in the banking and finance industry, with a particular focus on a firm’s relationship with its FINRA members. Topics will include:Practical steps financial… Continue Reading
A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, Holland Ins. Group, LLC v. Senior Life Ins. Co., 766 S.E.2d 187 (Nov. 20, 2014), includes several excellent reminders regarding the enforceability (and unenforceability) of restrictive covenants in Georgia.
Relevant Facts and Holding
William Holland and Senior Life Insurance Company entered into an agreement (“Agreement”) authorizing Holland to sell Senior Life’s … Continue Reading
The recent decision of the High Court in Re-use Collections Limited v. Sendall & May Glass Recycling Ltd. serves as a useful reminder for employers: restrictive covenants introduced during the employment relationship (rather than at the point of hiring) require specific consideration if they are to be enforceable. Under UK law, changes to employment terms require consideration if they are … Continue Reading
As many readers will know, non-compete clauses in employment contracts are only valid in France if, among other conditions, an employee receives a financial consideration of 40 to 60% salary depending on the sector and the role for the duration of the restriction. But do confidentiality clauses need to be subject to the same treatment?
The recently published decision of … Continue Reading
Several ex-employees now may compete with their former employer, and may solicit its employees and customers, after a federal judge in the Eastern District of Washington held that the restrictive provisions in their employment agreements are unenforceable.
The agreements, drafted by the former employer, contained a choice-of-law provision which the former employer tried unsuccessfully to invalidate. The court also held … Continue Reading
When & Where: This program will be held at three different locations.
November 13th at Seyfarth Shaw’s San Francisco Office (lunch and registration will begin at 11:30 a.m., program will begin at noon and go until 1:30 p.m.).
November 18th at Seyfarth Shaw’s … Continue Reading
An employee executed an employment agreement which included a two-year covenant not to solicit the employer’s customers. When the employer sold the company’s assets, the sale included that agreement. The employee then went to work for the assets purchaser but subsequently resigned. The Texas Appellate Court held that the two-year period began to run on the date the assets seller … Continue Reading
In an effort to preempt another “Bridgegate” scandal, New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg has sponsored a bill to extend whistleblower protection to employees who disclose incidents of wasted public funds, governmental abuse, or gross mismanagement. On October 9, 2014, the New Jersey Senate’s Labor Committee approved Bill S-768, which, … Continue Reading
In many cases, the execution of a mutual release is often the last step in resolving a trade secret or non-compete case. Typically included in the release is an affirmation that all confidential information has been returned and the once former adversaries promise not to sue one another. Once the release is executed, the fight is usually over. Usually, but … Continue Reading
The plaintiff corporation — now a Delaware LLC based in Kansas — was headquartered in Alberta, Canada at the time its employees signed agreements containing confidentiality and non-compete covenants. The agreements designated the applicable law to be that of Alberta. When its ex-employees allegedly violated the covenants, the plaintiff sued them and their new employer in a Kansas federal court. … Continue Reading
The fifth webinar in the 2014 series, was presented by Wan Li, Ming Henderson, Justine Turnbull and Daniel Hart, focused on non-compete and trade secret considerations from an international perspective. Specifically, the webinar involved a discussion … Continue Reading