The Massachusetts Superior Court recently held in Now Business Intelligence, Inc. v. Donahue that a temporary reassignment during a business slowdown, consisting of the addition of certain non-billable duties, does not constitute a material change invalidating a non-compete agreement. The dispute centered on Now Business Intelligence, Inc.’s (“NBI”) ability to hold its former employee, Sean Donahue (“Donahue”), liable for breach of his covenant not to compete.
Continue Reading Massachusetts Superior Court Axes an Attempt to Expand the Scope of the Seminal Non-Compete Law Concerning Material Change in Employment
Upcoming Webinar! Weathering the COVID-19 Storm With Your Trade Secrets and Customer Goodwill Intact
On Thursday, April 23 at 12 p.m. Central, Seyfarth attorneys Erik Weibust, Marcus Mintz, and Jeremy Cohen are presenting Weathering the COVID-19 Storm With Your Trade Secrets and Customer Goodwill Intact, a webinar is Seyfarth’s Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic Webinar Series.
COVID-19 has changed the way most companies are currently doing business, from requiring remote work, to using new
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! Weathering the COVID-19 Storm With Your Trade Secrets and Customer Goodwill Intact
Ninth Circuit Seeks Guidance From California Supreme Court on Business to Business Non-Competes
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
Maine Governor Restricts Restrictive Covenants
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
California State Court Rules that NCAA “Show Cause” Penalty Constitutes an “Unlawful Restraint” Under California Law
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
Appellate Court Re-Affirms Key Aspects of Georgia Non-Compete 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
Federal Court Reverses Prior Decision on Retroactive Impact of New Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act
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
Trade Secrets 2011 Webinar Series: Upcoming July 21, 2011 Webinar -On Georgia’s Revised 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
Texas Supreme Court Allows Stock Options as Consideration for Non-Compete Agreements
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
Georgia Governor Signs New Restrictive Covenant Act
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