In This Presentation:
The California Landscape: A Refresher
- Post-Termination Non-Competes
– Unenforceable under Bus. & Prof. Code §16600 and Edwards v. Arthur Andersen
– Other jurisdictions may allow if reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests and if reasonable in time and geographical scope
– Designating another state's law as controlling will not override CA public policy
– The “race to the courthouse”
- Excerpt from Post-Termination Non-Competes:
Non-competes may be enforceable IF:
– Qualifies under sale or dissolution of business ownership exception
– During employment
– For non-solicitation of customers and employees if necessary to protect trade secrets
..Caution: Edwards v. Arthur Anderson did not rule on the “trade secret exception”; subsequent CA and federal courts in flux
– Contained in an ERISA plan (preemption)
– Garden Leave -- not yet tested in CA
– Legitimate forum selection and choice of law clauses.
Please see full presentation below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Topics: Confidential Information, Employee Rights, Employer Liability Issues, ERISA, Hiring & Firing, Non-Compete Agreements, Non-Solicitation Agreements, Restrictive Covenants, Termination, Trade Secrets
Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, General Business Updates, Intellectual Property Updates, Labor & Employment Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | Attorney Advertising