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
When implementing restrictive covenant agreements in their workforces, companies often grapple with how best to handle the wide variation in the law from one state to the other. One solution is to include a choice of law provision that calls for all agreements to be construed under the laws of a single state. Still, there
Nebraska’s legal history on the enforceability of non-compete agreements is usually a surprise for employers who view Nebraska as pro-business. Nebraska courts routinely invalidate employee non-compete agreements that venture beyond restricting the employee from doing business with and soliciting customers with whom that employee did business and had personal contact. If there is a non-compete
In a detailed, 26-page published decision in the matter of Cardoni v Prosperity Bank, No. 14-20682 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2015) the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals took a deep look at choice of law provisions in restrictive covenants. The Appellate Court started out by noting that in addition to their well-known disagreements over
Shawn Kee has written on the Jackson Lewis website about a recent decision from the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, James F. Dill Jr. et al v. Continental Car Club, Inc., in which the Court held that a non-compete was narrowly enforceable under Tennessee law, although it declined to enforce a Florida choice-of-law provision which
In the latest chapter of an ongoing dispute between Aon Risk Services and Alliant Insurance Services (stemming from Alliant’s hiring of dozens of Aon employees and accepting millions in annual revenue from former Aon clients), on January 10, 2013, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department issued a decision upholding key rulings