In the midst of a federal effort to ramp up antitrust prosecutions of companies agreeing not to recruit or hire each other’s employees (see previous articles dated November 9, 2016, January 25, 2018, April 25, 2018 and July 17, 2018), special scrutiny – and criticism – has been directed toward the use
Consider This – Minnesota Court Of Appeals Again Requires Proof Of Additional Consideration For Non-Compete Agreements For Existing Employees
In October and November of this past year, we wrote about two Minnesota court decisions – Mid-America Business Systems v. Sanderson et al., Case No. 17-3876 (Dist. Minn. Oct. 6, 2017) and Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier, Case No. A17-0360 (Minn. App., Nov. 6, 2017) — that addressed the adequacy of consideration that
Minnesota Court Of Appeals Reaffirms That A Non-Compete Must Be Part Of A Job Offer To A Prospective Employee
Last month, this Blog highlighted a Minnesota decision evaluating the consideration required for non-compete agreements entered into after the commencement of employment. As that decision held, such agreements must be supported by valuable consideration over and above continued employment.
This month, in Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier, Case No. A17-0360 (Minn. App., Nov. 6,
Continued Employment Isn’t Always Sufficient – Minnesota Requires Additional Consideration For Non-Compete With Current Employee
The Minnesota federal district court recently refused to enforce a non-compete agreement, in part, because the employer failed to establish that the agreement was supported by valuable consideration. The decision, issued on October 6, 2017 in Mid-America Business Systems, v. Sanderson et. al., Case No. 17-3876, serves as an important reminder that,
Minnesota Court Applies Texas Law, Proceeds to Blue Pencil Restriction
The District of Minnesota issued an interesting decision on June 9, 2015 in the case of BMC Software, Inc. v. Mahoney, No. 15-CV-2583 (PAM/TNL). Mahoney was a Sales Manager for BMC and responsible for the Midwest Region. Around the time he was promoted into that role, he signed a non-compete agreement governed by Texas
Minnesota Supreme Court Allows Advice of Counsel Defense to Tortious Interference Claim in Non-Compete Dispute
The Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed lower court findings dismissing a claim of tortious interference with contract by a staff augmentation company that successfully sued a former employee and his new employer for breach of a non-compete agreement. Sysdyne Corp. v. Rousslang, et al, No. A13-0898 (Minn. March 4, 2015). Sysdyne, the plaintiff at
$40 Million In Sale of Business Held Sufficient Consideration for Non-Compete
A federal court in Minnesota has rebuffed a plea by the founders of medical device company Rochester Medical to invalidate five year non-competes they signed in connection with the sale of their business to C.R. Bard, Inc. Conway v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2015). Plaintiffs argued that the non-competes were invalid for
Half-Billion Dollar Arbitration Award in Trade Secrets Case Affirmed by Minnesota Supreme Court in Trade Secrets Dispute
The Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed an arbitrator’s eye-popping award of $525 million plus prejudgment interest totaling $96 million and post-award interest in a trade secrets dust up between Seagate Technology, LLC and Western Digital Corporation, et al. Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, et al and Sining Mao, No. A12-1994 (Minn. October
Should a Non-Compete be Signed Before or After Employment Begins? Answer: It Depends
The variation among states when it comes to non-compete law is a source of frustration for many employers. And sometimes, similar facts can lead to opposite results depending on the jurisdiction. A recent decision from the Southern District of Alabama, holding that a non-compete can only be signed after employment begins, shows how Alabama law
Federal Court in Minnesota Rejects Automatic Tolling of Non-Compete
We have previously written about tolling provisions on this blog. In a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz held that, under Minnesota law, non-compete terms do not automatically reset upon violation. The decision in U.S. Water v. Watertech of America, No. 13-CV-1258 (PJS/JSM), concerned a