On August 26, 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court invalidated a California employee’s customer and employee non-solicitation covenant on the grounds that it violated California law. In doing so, the Court rejected the plaintiff company’s attempt to override California law by including a Delaware choice of law provision in the underlying agreement.
Background
We initially reported
The Ninth Circuit recently filed its latest installment in the saga involving David Nosal and his former employer, Korn/Ferry International, an executive search firm. Korn/Ferry maintains a proprietary database of executive candidates for its paying customers. Nosal, a former Korn/Ferry executive, set up a competing business. Allegedly desiring the information in Korn/Ferry’s database for his
In the first decision under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), which was signed into law on May 11, 2016, a California federal court has granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against a sales consultant who changed employers and allegedly stole confidential data in violation of federal and state trade secret laws
Clifford R. Atlas and Ravindra K. Shaw of Jackson Lewis’s New York office have written on the firm’s website about a recent decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals applying the narrow definition of “exceeds authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The case is United States v. Valle, 2015 U.S.
The use of forum-selection clauses in non-compete agreements received a possible boost from a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 187 L. Ed. 2d 487 (2013). Cliff Atlas and Ravindra Shaw have writtten an article on the
When an executive search firm bought the goodwill and other assets of a similar firm and learned that the individual sellers took client lists and diverted business in violation of their non-compete agreements, it terminated the sellers’ employment and sued them and other third-party defendants for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) as