Pre-Merger Non-Solicitation Ban Yields No Antitrust Claim

Allen Matkins
Contact

Allen Matkins

It is rare that for an employer to instruct its employees not to try to lure aware a competitor's customers.  It is rarer still when an employer fires an employee for doing so.  These may be rare events, but apparently (or at least allegedly) they have happened:

Amidst a corporate merger, a sales executive is told there are limitations on how he can compete for the merging partner’s clients. He loses sales commissions and is terminated for poor sales performance.  Does he have standing to assert a cause of action under the Cartwright Act, California’s antitrust statute? (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.)  On the particular facts alleged in this case, the answer is clearly no.

Ahn v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 2023 WL 4343144 (Cal. Ct. App. July 5, 2023).  According to the court, the executive's problem was that his injury did not arise from the alleged anticompetitive aspects of the agreement, but rather form conduct that emphasized the competitors' competitive differences.   Therefore there was antitrust injury with the result that the plaintiff lacked standing.

 

[View source.]

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.

© Allen Matkins | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Allen Matkins
Contact
more
less

Allen Matkins on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide