The Ninth Circuit has certified questions to the California Supreme Court in Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen seeking guidance as to: 1) whether section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code extends to contracts between businesses; and 2) whether pleading an independent wrongful act is necessary to state a claim for intentional interference with a contract outside the at-will employment contract context. The California Supreme Court has agreed to accept the Ninth Circuit’s inquiry and the appellate briefing was recently completed. We expect the Supreme Court to have oral argument and likely rule in the summer or fall of 2020. The California Supreme Court’s disposition of the novel issues could have sweeping ramifications that ripple through commercial and business industries.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Seeks Guidance From California Supreme Court on Business to Business Non-Competes

On June 28, 2019, Governor Mills signed LD 733, An Act To Promote Keeping Workers in Maine, into law.  The Act places limits on non-compete agreements and bans restrictive employment agreements.

Non-Compete Agreements

The Act defines a non-compete agreement as one restricting the employee “from working in the same or similar profession or in a specified geographic area for a certain period of time following termination of employment.”
Continue Reading Maine Governor Restricts Restrictive Covenants

On October 9, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Frederick Shaller confirmed his tentative decision weeks earlier that the “show cause” penalty in the NCAA’s bylaws violates California law.

The decision was issued as a tentative ruling on plaintiff (former running back coach at USC) Todd McNair’s claim for declaratory relief. McNair sought—and received—a determination that the NCAA bylaw provisions including the “show cause order” penalty levied against him were void under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.     
Continue Reading California State Court Rules that NCAA “Show Cause” Penalty Constitutes an “Unlawful Restraint” Under California Law

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
Continue Reading Appellate Court Re-Affirms Key Aspects of Georgia Non-Compete Law

By Dan Hart

As we have written on this blog before, on May 11, 2011 Georgia reissued its new Restrictive Covenant Act (“New Act”) in order to resolve concerns about the constitutionality and effectiveness of a nearly identical statute that the state’s legislature had previously enacted in 2009. The 2009 version of the statute was contingent on voters’ approval
Continue Reading Federal Court Reverses Prior Decision on Retroactive Impact of New Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act

Starting this year, restrictive covenants in employment agreements and other business-related agreements in Georgia are subject to new rules governing who can enter into these agreements, how these agreements should be written, and how disputes will be handled by the courts.

What’s changed – for businesses, the bench and the bar? What’s remained the same? What can we do? What

Continue Reading Trade Secrets 2011 Webinar Series: Upcoming July 21, 2011 Webinar -On Georgia’s Revised Restrictive Covenant Act

A recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court makes it easier for employers to enforce restrictive covenants in Texas. Employers often seek to obtain these types of contracts with key employees to prevent them from going to work for competitors or to leave to start competing businesses. The enforceability of such contracts is typically governed by state law, resulting in

Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Allows Stock Options as Consideration for Non-Compete Agreements

Aimed at eliminating a potential issue regarding the effective date of the earlier statute and to fix certain drafting anomalies identified after previous passage, Georgia’s Restrictive Covenant Act  (version 2011), is now law, as the Governor signed the bill as passed by the House and Senate late this afternoon (May 11, 2011). 

The legislature made clear that the impetus
Continue Reading Georgia Governor Signs New Restrictive Covenant Act

On January 20, 2011, Massachusetts State Representatives Lori Ehrlich, William Brownsberger, and Alice Hanlong Peisch re-filed the Massachusetts non-compete bill, aptly entitled “An Act Relative to Noncompetition Agreements.”  The bill was originally submitted in late 2009 as House No. 1799, and since that time has undergone significant review, comment, and revision.  While much of the bill remains the same, its

Continue Reading Massachusetts Legislature Considers Revised Non-Compete Bill

TalentBurst, Inc. v. Collabera, Inc., Civ. No. 08-10940-WGY (D. Mass. July 25, 2008).

A federal court in Boston has dismissed a complaint brought by information technology temp agency TalentBurst against competitor Collabera for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by TalentBurst’s former employee, who subsequently joined Collabera, on the ground that the employee owed no fiduciary duty

Continue Reading Massachusetts Federal Court Dismisses Claim Against New Employer for Aiding and Abetting Employee’s Violation of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty to Former Employer.