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: 11-20 of 34

Solicitor General decides not to file petition for review in United States v. Nosal: Circuit split on Computer Fraud and Abuse Act remains
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2012

The Solicitor General indicated yesterday that he will not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nosal


Big brother can’t ask for access to your “personal” social media accounts either.more social media legislation proposed in California
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 12 2012

Recently, we blogged about the passage of California Assembly Bill 1844, which regulates employers’ ability to demand access to employees’ or prospective hires’ personal social media accounts


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


Missouri Supreme Court reaffirms that Missouri is a pro non-compete jurisdiction, enforcing non-competition and modified non-solicitation agreements against non-resident former security company employees
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 21 2012

The Missouri Supreme Court recently issued a decision, Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew, et al., 2012 Mo. LEXIS 167, reaffirming Missouri as a pro non-compete jurisdiction for employers


Key Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case heard by Ninth Circuit en banc panel: can rogue employees be held liable for data theft under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 16 2011

The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on the key United States v. Nosal case yesterday before an en banc panel


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


California federal court boots employee’s challenge of his non-compete because of Pennsylvania forum selection provision
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • September 27 2012

In a recent order, a federal court in the Northern District of California weighed in on the validity of a forum selection clause contained in an employment agreement in connection with a California employee’s declaratory relief action to invalidate his non-compete provision with his former employer


The state of the employee: California Court of Appeal finds that non-competition agreement contained in employment agreement is unenforceable against former selleremployee even though it was executed in connection with the sale of a business
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 27 2012

Non-competition 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 California’s general prohibition against non-competition agreements


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


Nevada Supreme Court rules that restrictive employment agreements acquired through mergers are not subject to Nevada's strict assignment rule
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • July 2 2009

In a decision that encourages cost efficient corporate mergers in Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court in HD Supply Facilities Maintenance v. Bymoan, 2009 WL 1635924 (June 11, 2009) recently ruled in an en banc decision that restrictive employment agreements acquired through corporate mergers do not require a showing that the agreements’ assignment provisions were negotiated at arm’s length or are supported by separate consideration