U.S. - Texas
2017.10.17 "Dean Foods Gets TRO Blocking Ex-Exec From Rival Dairy" - That title comes from a Law360 article that begins with these highlights:
2014.Aug.29 Forfeiture-for-Disloyalty Sustained by Texas Supreme Court (applying NY Choice of Law)
There is a crucial difference between non-competition provisions and forfeitures-for-competition, and the Supreme Court of Texas highlighted that in ruling against a Texas-based employee who resigned from Exxon Mobil to join a competitor. That employee forfeited about $5.7 million of restricted stock awards due to "detrimental conduct" within the meaning of to the underlying plan and award agreements. The decision highlights the importance of well-grounding the forfeiture in suitable state law. Writing that "Forfeiture provisions conditioned on loyalty . . . do not restrict or prohibit the employee's future employment opportunities," the Supreme Court of Texas declined to apply state non-compete principles and instead applied New York's employee choice doctrine. The court enforced the parties' designation of New York law as controlling partly because the employee had worked in New York for 3 of his 31 years, but seemingly more so because --
2013.Feb.08 Schlumberger Obtains TRO to Stop Ex-Engineer from Joining Halliburton
As reported in Law360: "A Texas court on Friday blocked a former employee of a Schlumberger Ltd. unit, who allegedly stole proprietary oil well development technology, from going to work for Halliburton Co., finding he likely violated confidentiality and noncompete agreements he signed." Email Mark for a copy of the TRO petition and decision; see generally Texas.
2013.Feb.12 Texas Appeals Court Strikes Down Cardiologist Non-compete for Public Policy Reasons -- see LinkedIn Discussion.
2011.June.29 Texas Supreme Court Upholds Non-compete Tied to Stock Options. Marsh USA v. Cook comprehensively examines how the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 15.50) and Texas non-compete caselaw apply when stock options serve as consideration for covenants not to compete. Marsh prevailed in part due to the court's holding that the executive's "exercise of the stock options to purchase MMC stock at a discounted price provided a reasonable nexus between the noncompete and the company s interest in protecting its goodwill." Here are other highlights quoted from the decision:
Fiduciary Duty Breach While Employed: See discussion at Navigant case (2004).
Sale of Business: 2010 Article titled "Sale of Business Noncompete Agreements in Texas"
* * *
Copyright © Joseph Poerio. All rights reserved.