We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 34

California court rules that non-competition agreement contained in employment agreement is unenforceable against former seller even though it was executed in connection with the sale of a business
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 29 2012

Noncompetition agreements executed in connection with the sale of a business are typically enforceable as a limited exception under Business and Professions Code section 16601 and applicable case authority to Californias general prohibition against noncompetition agreements


Kentucky appellate court affirms authority of Kentucky courts to modify overly broad non-competition agreements in the employment context and sets forth “guiding principles” for future non-compete cases
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • September 6 2012

In a recent opinion, Creech, Inc. v. Brown, the Kentucky Court of Appeals both affirmed the ability of Kentucky courts to modify overly broad non-competition agreements in the employment context and laid out a six-part framework that trial courts may follow when analyzing the reasonableness and enforceability of non-competition agreements


Employers' obligation to defend and indemnify rogue employees in California?
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 14 2011

On October 12, 2011, the California Court of Appeal in Nicholas Laboratories, LLC v. Christopher Chen, No. G044105, 2011 WL 4823329 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2011), held that Labor Code section 2802 does not require an employer to reimburse its employee for attorney fees incurred in the employee’s successful defense of the employer’s action against the employee


Fitness companies spar over unauthorized access of departing employee's personal e-mail accounts
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 25 2011

Wrongfully accessing someone's personal email account may cost you $1,000 per unauthorized access, even if that person suffers no injury or loss


US Supreme Court strikes down Oklahoma Supreme Court decision and holds that arbitrator, rather than court, must determine the enforceability of non-compete agreements containing arbitration provisions
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 5 2012

There are not many issues that the United States Supreme Court can unanimously resolve in five short pages


Ninth Circuit en banc panel tells employers that Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is only to combat hacking, not employee trade secret misappropriation: United States Supreme Court may need to resolve circuit split
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • April 10 2012

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel released its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Nosal and affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing criminal counts against a former employee of a headhunter firm accused of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030 et seq. by conspiring with employees of the former employer to log on to the employer's confidential database and send proprietary files to a competitor


Colorado Federal Court rules that former employer stated a claim against former executive and his new employer under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act regardless of differing circuit interpretations of the act
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2012

In its order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in SBM Site Services, LLC v. Garrett, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00385, a Colorado federal court identified a circuit split over the interpretation of “unauthorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and then found a former employer had stated a CFAA claim against a former executive and his new employer regardless of the different circuit interpretations based upon his post-termination computer activities


California Appellate Court holds that non-compete restriction in stipulated injunction is enforceable because there was no showing that it was not necessary to protect trade secrets
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2012

A California Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court ruling that found a stipulated injunction preventing the solicitation of customers was invalid and unenforceable under California Business & Professions Code section 16000


Colorado federal court decision in non-compete dispute demonstrates importance of drafting enforceable forum selection provisions in business transactions
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2012

As part of the process of acquiring of a business and retaining key employees of the acquired business, multiple agreements surrounding the parameters and contingencies of the transaction are often drafted, including asset purchase agreements and employment agreements


Federal Court requires foreign resident to litigate non-compete dispute in Missouri based upon Forum Selection Clause
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 26 2013

It's 8,242.7 miles or a 17 hour flight between the Philippines and Missouri. Nobody would dispute that this is a significant distance, but as far the