For those interested in commenting on the FTC’s proposed rule banning nearly all non-competes, today, April 19, is your deadline to do so!
To date, approximately 25,000 comments have been submitted to the FTC, from individuals, corporations, and various industry groups and legal associations. That includes a comment from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (as part of a coalition
Continue Reading Today’s the Day: Deadline to Submit Comments to the FTC
The FTC announced yesterday that it was extending the deadline to submit public comments on its proposed rule banning employment non-competes.
With the extension, the FTC will now be accepting comments on the proposed rule until April 19. Originally, the deadline for submitting comments was March 20.
Information on how to submit comments can be found in the Federal Register notice.
Continue Reading FTC Extends Public Comment Deadline on Proposed Rule Banning Employment Non-Competes Until April 19th
In the first installment of our 2023 Trade Secrets & Non-Competes Webinar Series, Seyfarth partners Kate Perrelli, Michael Wexler, Robert Milligan, Dan Hart, and Dawn Mertineit discussed the new Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) proposed rule banning the use of non-competes with employees and workers. The expert panel addressed what the proposed rule would do and what employers need to know
Continue Reading Webinar Recap! FTC Proposes Rule Banning Use of Non-Competes. Now What?
Thursday, January 12, 2023
3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern
2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Central
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Mountain
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Pacific
In the first installment of the 2023 Trade Secrets & Non-Competes Webinar Series, our team will focus on the new Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) proposed rule banning the use of
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! FTC Proposes Rule Banning Use of Non-Competes. Now What?
Earlier today, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published a proposed rule which would ban all non-compete agreements between employers and “workers” (broadly defined to include employees, independent contractors, interns, and others). If adopted, the proposed rule will bar both prospective and existing non-compete agreements. The FTC included an overview fact sheet describing the proposed rule.
The FTC is seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which is based on a preliminary finding that non-competes constitute an unfair method of competition and therefore violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. This proposed rule aligns with the FTC’s recent statement to attempt to reinvigorate Section 5 of the FTC Act, which bans unfair methods of competition.
Continue Reading FTC Proposes Rule Banning Use of Non-Competes with Employees and Workers and Limiting Employer Protections Against Unfair Competition
The District of Massachusetts recently held that garden leave payments, whereby a former employee subject to a restrictive covenant is paid by the former employer for the duration of the restrictive period, do not constitute “wages” under the Massachusetts Wage Act.
Continue Reading Federal Court Determines that Garden Leave Payments Under Massachusetts Non-Compete Law Are Not Wages, Limiting Former Employees’ Leverage Under Wage Act
Many restrictive covenant agreements rely on various abbreviations to streamline the contractual language, including most notably the use of “Company” as a stand-in for the employer’s name. Additionally, these agreements often state that they inure to the benefit of the employer’s parent, subsidiaries, and other affiliates. However, a recent case in federal court demonstrates the importance of carefully defining terms to best protect the employer’s legitimate business interests.
Continue Reading “What’s in a Name?” A Shortened Restrictive Covenant Duration, Perhaps
This article was originally published in the Boston Bar Association’s Fall 2022 Boston Bar Journal.
Just over four years ago, the Massachusetts legislature finally passed a bill long in the works addressing non-compete agreements and replacing the Commonwealth’s trade secret misappropriation statute with a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (the “UTSA”), referred to herein as “MUTSA.” See M. G. L. c. 93, § 42-42G. While the Commonwealth’s “new” non-compete law has received the most attention, the adoption of the UTSA was also notable. Even though Massachusetts is the 49th state to adopt the UTSA, MUTSA differs from other states’ versions of the UTSA. This piece will discuss the differences in pre- and post-MUTSA jurisprudence and what issues may be implicated by the law.
Continue Reading The Massachusetts Trade Secrets Act, Four Years On: What to know
In the sixth installment of our 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Dawn Mertineit and Robyn Marsh discussed tips and best practices for multijurisdictional businesses when it comes to restrictive covenants, including non-compete and non-solicitation agreements.
As a conclusion to this webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:
Tuesday, October 18
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific
In the sixth installment in the 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys will discuss tips and best practices for multijurisdictional businesses when it comes to restrictive covenants, including non-compete and
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! How Multijurisdictional Businesses Should Approach Non-Competes