Scope

October 13, 2017

DON’T LET THE METER RUN ON YOUR NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT

When a key employee resigns, the question always asked is “what are your plans?” If the employee is subject to a non-compete agreement, the answer may not always be truthful, particularly if the employee plans to work for a competitor in violation of a non-compete restriction. This is why many employers wisely include a provision in their non-compete agreements which requires employees to disclose the fact that they are going (or intend to go) to work for a competitor. But even with such a provision many departing employees do not disclose their intentions.

In fact, it is common for a former employer not to learn that the employee is violating a non-compete for weeks – or even months – after the employee has been working for the competition. If the employer does not learn about the violation until months later, the question then becomes, for enforcement purposes, when does the restricted period begin to run? In other words, does it begin from when the employer found out about the violation or does it begin to run as soon as the employee went to work for the competition? The answer depends largely upon the agreement itself.

If the non-compete agreement includes a properly drafted tolling provision the answer, at least in Delaware, seems clear – the restricted period will not include any time during which the former employee violated the restriction – assuming that the restricted period itself is held to be reasonable. In such case, the employer gets the benefit of what it bargained for, i.e., a full restrictive period free from a former employee’s breach.

May 18, 2017

USING NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENTS EFFECTIVELY: KNOW YOUR LIMITS IN DELAWARE

by Scott Holt

The proliferation of the use of non-compete agreements was highlighted in a recent article in the New York Times (see, “How Noncompete Clauses Keep Workers Locked In”, May 13, 2017). The article referenced a survey which concluded that about 20 percent of the American workforce was subject to some form of non-compete clause, and how these agreements are hurting employee mobility. This explains why a number of states, including California and Utah, have banned or limited the use of such agreements, and why other states are considering such legislation.

In Delaware, non-compete agreements are considered restraints on trade, so courts such as the Delaware Court of Chancery will enforce them only if they are “reasonable”. The reasonableness of the restrictions depends upon factors such as the employer’s interest in protecting its business; the scope of the restrictions; the employee’s right to work and earn a living; and the public’s interest in free trade and competition. Below are a number of considerations for businesses to consider when drafting and enforcing non-competes subject to Delaware law.

Ask Yourself – What are You Trying to Protect?

March 8, 2016

Court Applies Delaware Law to Noncompete Agreement and Refuses to Enforce Under “Employee Choice” Doctrine

by Scott Holt

Most agreements not to compete provide for injunctive relief as the primary remedy against a departing employee who joins a competitor. In some cases, however, companies will condition the payment of post-employment or deferred compensation on the employee’s compliance with a noncompete agreement. These arrangements are often referred to as the “employee choice” doctrine. Under this doctrine, an employee who departs and subsequently violates his noncompete obligations will forfeit any right to the post-employment compensation. The doctrine is based on the premise that a departing employee is given the choice of either preserving his right to compensation by refraining from engaging in competitive activities, or forfeiting that right by choosing to compete with the former employer.

Although Delaware courts have not specifically addressed this doctrine, a recent New York decision applying Delaware law applied the doctrine and refused to grant the former employer’s request for injunctive relief. In NBTY, Inc. v. O’Connell Vigliante, the plaintiff NBTY was a vitamin and nutritional product distributor. Beginning in 2014, a number of NBTY employees resigned and went to work at Piping Rock Health Products, LLC – a competitor run by NBTY’s former CEO. All of the departing NBTY employees had signed stock-option agreements with NBTY’s parent which allowed them to purchase stock options over a period of time, and the agreements contained restrictive covenants prohibiting them from competing with NBTY for a one-year period following the end of their employment. Notably, the agreements all contained Delaware choice of law provisions.

After the employees resigned and went to Piping Rock, NBTY sued to enforce the non-compete agreements and sought to permanently enjoin the employees from working at Piping Rock. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that they had not exercised any of the stock options in question and thus there was no consideration.

February 9, 2016

What Should Be in Your Noncompete Agreement?

by Scott Holt

Covenants not to compete, or noncompete agreements, can play a key role in helping a business entity protect its confidential information, prevent unfair competition and the raiding of its workforce. A poorly drafted agreement, however, can leave the business exposed to claims that the covenants are not enforceable, which in turn can lead to unnecessary litigation. Below are a number of common components that make up a well-drafted non-competition agreement.

Define the Parties

The parties should always be identified as one of the first terms in the agreement. The drafting attorney should make sure that all corporate entities which have an interest in the protections afforded by the agreement are included. This is especially important where there are parent, subsidiary or affiliated companies.

August 6, 2014

Drafting Enforceable Non-solicitation Agreements

by Scott Holt

Significant time, money and resources often goes into developing client relationships. To protect these relationships, more companies are requiring managers and other employees who have significant contact with clients to sign non-solicitation agreements.

However, requiring an employee to sign a non-solicitation agreement and being able to enforce that agreement are two completely different matters. Customer non-solicitation agreements, like traditional non-compete agreements, are considered restraints on trade, and thus most courts, including those in Delaware, will enforce them only if they are “reasonable.”

Courts will traditionally assess the reasonableness of a non-solicitation agreement by evaluating the scope of the restriction as it relates to three factors: 1) the employer’s interest in protecting its business; 2) the employee’s right to work and earn a living; and 3) the public’s interest in free trade and competition. What follows are four points to consider when drafting a non-solicitation agreement under Delaware law.

February 17, 2012

Protecting Trade Secrets In Delaware

by Scott Holt

Employers frequently confront the problem of theft or misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential, proprietary information by departing employees. While employers have an arsenal of legal weapons at their disposal to protect their most valuable business assets, it is critical that they take proactive steps to protect against the disclosure of important business information and prevent unfair competition. From a practical standpoint, failure to implement basic security measures makes it easier for an unethical employee or competitor to misappropriate confidential business information. From a legal perspective, absent efforts to preserve the secrecy of such information and avoid unfair competition, a court is unlikely to respond favorably to an employer request for relief.

Trade Secret Protection

Delaware, like most states, has enacted the “Uniform Trade Secrets Act” providing employers with legal protection for trade secret information even in the absence of contractual agreements with employees. While many people may believe that “trade secret” status is only afforded to scientific data such as the formula for Coke, in reality, trade secret protection is available for a much broader array of information. The statutory definition for a trade secret is “information” that “derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means, by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.” To be protected by the statute, the information must be “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”

March 28, 2011

Court of Chancery Indicates It May Strike – Not Reform—Overly Broad Non-Compete Clause

by Scott Holt

When enforcing covenants not to compete, Delaware has long been viewed as a “reformation” state – meaning that when faced with an overbroad covenant, Delaware law allows the court to reduce the scope of the covenant and enforce it to the extent that the court deems reasonable. This view has developed among the lower courts in a number of decisions, but has never been fully addressed by the Delaware Supreme Court.

However, as we noted in an earlier article, it is important to make certain the restrictive covenant you draft is reasonable both in its scope and duration. Employers should not count on a court to “reform” a poorly drafted restrictive covenant that is overly broad or vague. A recent case from the Court of Chancery demonstrates why.

In the case of Delaware Elevator, Inc. v. John Williams, No. 5596-VCL (Del. Ch. March 16, 2011), the plaintiff-employer sued its former employee alleging a violation of the employee’s non-competition agreement. Because the employee admitted that he had engaged in conduct that violated the terms of the non-competition agreement, the only question before the Court was whether the non-competition agreement was overly broad, and therefore unenforceable.

February 11, 2011

Court Doesn’t Buy Sellers’ Effort To Get Out Of Noncompete Agreement

by Scott Holt

A purchaser of a business often require the seller to agree to a non-compete agreement as part of the sale terms. This not only has tax benefits (the agreement can be considered an acquired intangible asset and and amortized for tax purposes), but it can protect the buyer from future competitive activities of the seller in the same marketplace.

Delaware courts have tended to enforce noncompetition agreements arising out of the sale of a business. Sale transactions are normally conducted at arms-length, and the courts are reluctant to strike down noncompete provisions that were negotiated as part of the sale price. A recent case decided in the Delaware Superior Court adhered to this view.

In O’Leary v. Telecom Resources Service, LLC et al., the plaintiffs sold their telecommunications business to Telecom Resources – a wholly owned subsidiary of NAL Worldwide. As part of the sale, both the asset purchase agreement and the plaintiffs’ employment contracts with the buyer contained noncompete provisions. After the plaintiffs were terminated from employment (for allegedly operating several competing business ventures), they sued Telecom Resources seeking, among other things, a declaration that the noncompete provisions were unenforceable.

June 8, 2010

Chancery Court Utilizes Two-Step Analysis for Enforcement of Non-Competes

by Scott Holt

The Delaware Court of Chancery generally employs a two-step analysis to determine the enforceability of a covenant not to compete in the employment context. The first step of the analysis is a question of basic contract law. The Court looks to whether there was mutual assent between the parties, whether adequate consideration was exchanged, and whether a material breach of the other party excuses performance.

Assuming that the covenant is valid under ordinary contract principles, the Court then determines whether four additional, covenant-specific conditions are satisfied. First, the temporal restrictions of the covenant must be reasonable in scope and duration. Second, the geographical limitations (if any) must be reasonable. Third, the covenant must advance a legitimate economic interest of the employer at the time enforcement is requested.

Fourth, the covenant must survive a balance of the equities test. Here, the Court looks to the harm likely to be caused to each party should their position be unsuccessful. The Court then balances the harms to ensure that no one party will suffer unfairly. This fourth condition is grounded in the equitable nature of the injunctive remedy being sought. As a result, a covenant not to compete may be valid but may not be specifically enforceable in the circumstances presented at the time of the application for enforcement.