Last October, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1076 into law and it became effective as of January 1, 2024. AB 1076 was the Legislature’s attempt to codify the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision, Edwards v....more
The California Supreme Court in the 2008 case, Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, ruled that a provision in an employment agreement that prevented an employee from competing with his former employer following the termination of...more
The Ninth Circuit recently asked the California Supreme Court to provide it with guidance concerning certain types of non-compete provisions that could have huge ramifications for California’s business environment. In...more
For years, California courts have recognized the right of employers to use non-solicitation provisions in employment agreements to prevent employees from “soliciting” their coworkers to join them at a new employer. For...more
Under California law, non-complete provisions are generally unenforceable. But what happens when the non-compete provision appears in an employment contract that is governed by another state’s law with a forum selection...more
Companies and employers around the country seek to protect their intellectual property by, among other things, using non-compete provisions in employment agreements. Generally, these provisions are intended to prevent an...more
8/24/2015
/ Arthur Anderson ,
Business & Professions Code ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Contract ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Morgan Stanley ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
Termination ,
Tortious Interference ,
Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices