Good Summary on Non-Competes

Posted on December 15, 2009 by Tom Crane

 Once again, Mike Maslanka writes a nice post, summarizing a complicated area of law.  See his post summarizing the law on non-competes.  Look at his summary near the end.  You can successfully attack a non-compete agreement on various theories: 1) the information provided to the employee was not truly confidential, 2) the confidential information was provided too late to be of any real benefit to the employee and it could not serve as consideration, 3) and the usual: the non-compete was too broad in geographical location or length of the agreement. 

Tags: , ,

Physician Non-Competes Now Limited in Regard to Patients

Posted on August 10, 2009 by Tom Crane

Russell Cawyer reports that the recent state legislative session amended the statute regarding non-compete agreements.  The new law allows physicians access to patients seen within a year.   The current law restricts the ability of employers to draft non-competes regarding geographic distance, time and activity.  This new provision adds this one category in regard to physicians.  

Tags: , , , ,

Stock Options not Enough for Non-Compete

Posted on July 28, 2009 by Tom Crane

 You work for an employer.  The employer has trade secrets and leads it wants to protect.  It asks you to sign a non-compete agreement when you hire on.  Most non-compete agreements provide that after you leave your job, you will not compete with your employer for a specified amount of time.  Is that non-compete agreement binding?  It would be binding if the employer gave you something in *consideration* for signing that non-compete.  Are stock options sufficient consideration?  A recent Dallas state court opinion says no.  Russell Cawyer, who generally represents employers, says money or other financial consideration will not be enough consideration to support your promise not to compete against your employer.  The employer should offer some binding promise, such as providing trade secrets.  

Once the employer makes good on that promise, then the non-compete *may* become binding.  See Chris McKinney's take on the current law regarding non-compete agreements.  

Tags: , , , ,