Contracts


Memorializing an agreement in a written contract serves two primary purposes.  First and foremost, a written contract should clearly set out the deal terms so that there is little or no chance of a misunderstanding as to what the parties’ rights and obligations are.  Further, to be sure that they get the deal terms right, in-house counsel often turn to business people involved in the deal because they are the experts on the deal terms. 

The second reason to have a written contract is to set out the “Rules of Engagement” that will apply if a dispute arises between the parties.  Such Rules, on which I have written in other posts, include choice of law provisions, forum selection clauses, liquidated damages provisions, and arbitration clauses, just to name a few.  Surprisingly, however, and in contrast to in-house counsels’ willingness to consult with business people about the deal terms in a contract, in-house counsel often are reluctant to consult with experts on the Rules of Engagement, i.e., experienced litigators.  Whether the reason for this is a psychological aversion to placing too much emphasis on what might go wrong with a deal before it is fully in … Keep reading

TAGS: , , , ,


Just as in romance, employer-employee relationships often are at their best in the courting stage.  During the after-glow of an initial hire, many employers wish to make new employees feel welcome by sending confirmatory offer letters.  Yet, in that warm and fuzzy moment, employers also should keep in mind that they may be binding themselves to certain obligations to which they never intended to be bound. 

To minimize regret when the employer-employee relationship goes sour, here are my top six tips of things to avoid in offer letters:

  1. If you intend for the employee to actually stay on for a set period of time, the term may be included, but be sure to couch the term as “anticipated term” and allow yourself the ability to terminate the relationship before the end of the term.  If the employment is “at-will,” specifically state “your employment is at-will, which means that you or the company may terminate your employment at any time for any reason or no reason at all.”
  2. Avoid stating compensation as an annual salary.  For example, state that the compensation to be provided an employee is $X per week, which is the equivalent of $Y annualized.  A promise of
… Keep reading
TAGS: , ,


In the January 24-31, 2013 “Business View” section of the Boston Business Journal,  State Senator William Brownsberger and State Representative Lori Erlich claimed that one reason Massachusetts is losing jobs to Silicon Valley is that California law prohibits non-compete agreements, whereas in Massachusetts they are routinely enforced.  The authors then use this conclusion to argue that the Commonwealth should legislate the elimination, or at least curtail the enforceability, of non-compete agreements. 

While I have no reason to doubt that Senator Brownsberger and Representative Erlich genuinely believe that eliminating or curtailing the enforceability of non-competes would be beneficial to the Commonwealth, their argument is deeply flawed.  As an initial matter, the legislators’ starting point is the “dozens of stories [they have been told] of young workers whose careers were delayed or substantially derailed by overreaching noncompetition agreements.”  Even assuming all of these stories are true, if the issue is the impact non-competes are having on the Massachusetts economy, the real starting point should be the number of people who actually left the Commonwealth simply to avoid signing a non-compete agreement.  Further, while Senator Brownsberger and Representative Erlich provide no empirical or even anecdotal data with which to make such … Keep reading

TAGS: , , , ,


In Enforcing Non-Compete Agreements Against California Employees — Part I, I discussed how a Massachusetts company might be able to enforce a non-compete against a California employee by including a Massachusetts choice of law provision in an employment agreement.  In this post, I will discuss three scenarios under which an employer may be able to obtain an actual (or the functional equivalent) of a non-compete with respect to California residents/employees even if California law applies.

1.      Enforcing a Non-Compete Against the Seller of Goodwill or Equity

 Section 16601 of the California Business and Professional Code states:

Any person who sells the goodwill of a business, or any owner of a business entity selling or otherwise disposing of all of his or her ownership interest in the business entity, or any owner of a business entity that sells (a) all or substantially all of its operating assets together with the goodwill of the business entity, (b) all or substantially all of the operating assets of a division or a subsidiary of the business entity together with the goodwill of that division or subsidiary, or (c) all of the ownership interest of any subsidiary, may agree with the buyer to

… Keep reading
TAGS: , ,


With the new year, taking the time to review the status of your independent contractors may create valuable savings.  Independent contractors, when properly classified, can often be a valuable and efficient means for both businesses and individuals to conduct business.  Many businesses engage workers on an independent contractor basis as means of avoiding rigorous requirements associated with an employment relationship, including payment of minimum wages and overtime; provision of benefits, workers’ compensation insurance and unemployment benefits; and protections under discrimination and safety laws – all of which may result in significant costs to the operation of a business.  If employees are misclassified as independent contractors, however, the company risks the potentially hefty damages resulting from a misclassification. 

The downturn in the economy has changed the face of independent contractor arrangements for a variety of reasons.  For workers, being classified as employees often means that they receive benefits, including paid vacation time, subsidized health insurance, workers compensation insurance benefits and unemployment benefits.  For many government agencies, classifying workers as employees often generates greater revenue from employment taxes that should have been paid, plus penalties and interest.  According to the National Employment Law Project’s Summary of Independent Contractor Reforms, New State … Keep reading

TAGS: , ,


In a post this summer, I raised three issues employers may want to consider before even requesting that an employee execute a covenant not to compete.  One issue that I did not mention is whether the company’s employee lives and works in California.  Although where an employee lives may be relevant, contrary to what many attorneys think, it may be possible for a Massachusetts company to enforce a non-compete against a California resident.… Keep reading

TAGS: , ,


One size most certainly does not fit all when it comes to noncompetition agreements.  Every state has its own requirements when it comes to the enforceability of employee noncompetition agreements.  In some, such as California, noncompetition agreements are unlawful by statute.  In other states, such as Colorado, noncompetition agreements may only be enforced in certain specific settings, such as the sale of a business.  In many states, however, noncompetition agreements will be enforced if they protect the company’s legitimate business interests and are reasonable in time, geographic scope and the scope of the limitations on the employee’s ability to perform his profession.  Where noncompetition agreements are not void as a matter of law, they are great fodder for litigators because there is no uniform definition of “legitimate business interest” and no consistent test to determine if the time, geographic scope and the scope of limitations on the employee’s ability to perform his profession are “reasonable.”  These criteria are very fact and case specific.

Although most litigation of noncompetes focuses on whether the business interests of the employer are “legitimate,” and/or if the geographic and temporal scopes of the limitations are “reasonable.” Equally important to the enforceability of a … Keep reading

TAGS: , , ,


After putting all of the specific deal points into a new contract, you are just about finished.  All you have to do now is add in the “Miscellaneous” section with all of your boilerplate provisions like force majeure, choice of law and a few others.  You have drafted so many contracts for so many years that you do not even know where some of these boilerplate provisions came from, let alone remember all of the implications of each.  Even more dangerous, there may be some boilerplate provisions on which you rely that may not be as enforceable as you think.  Take, for example, a standard clause appearing in many contracts stating the following:  “Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create any enforceable right in favor of any non-party to this Agreement.”

For sure there is no downside to including such a clause in a contract.  Indeed, Professor Corbin, one of the preeminent authorities on contract law has said, “If two contracting parties expressly provide that some third party who will be benefited by performance shall have no legally enforceable right, the courts should effectuate the expressed intent by denying the party any direct remedy.” (Corbin on … Keep reading

TAGS: , , ,


Sometimes, when business people can’t directly negotiate (or re-negotiate) favorable deal terms, they are tempted to withhold a payment or some other obligation in an effort to leverage the other party into an agreement it otherwise would not make.  In-house counsel should be wary of endorsing such conduct, as this could result in exposing their companies to liability going far beyond simply having to lose face and/or doing what they should have done in the first place.  Take, for example, the following scenario:

Acme engaged Alpha as its exclusive manufacturer for widgets and gidgets for two years.  Four months later, Acme tries to negotiate a similar deal with Beta to manufacture didgets, and, if consummated, such a deal would provide Acme with ten times the revenue that the Alpha contract was expected to provide.  While Beta expresses interest, it eventually makes clear that unless it also can manufacture gidgets, there will be no deal.  While Acme tries to buy out of the gidget portion of the Alpha contract so that Acme can give Beta what it wants, Alpha refuses.  Acme’s CEO realizes that the Beta deal is going to fall apart if something does not change quickly, so she … Keep reading

TAGS: ,


While many employers take comfort in knowing that some or all of their employees have agreed to non-compete covenants, obtaining and enforcing such agreements does not come without costs.  As such, it is important for in-house counsel to explore with their business clients whether it really makes legal and economic sense to seek such agreements.  Among the issues you may want to raise are the following:

Issue # 1: How Likely is it that the Contemplated Non-Compete Would Be Enforceable?

Most in-house counsel who have had any dealings with non-compete covenants know that if such a covenant merely limits competition, it is not enforceable.  Because many business clients do not have a clear understanding of this counterintuitive principle, in-house counsel can save a lot of future angst if they make sure that the business people know right from the start that a non-compete covenant only is enforceable if it is necessary to protect confidential information, goodwill or trade secrets.  Indeed, because there are many situations in which none of these three interests will be protected by a non-compete, if your client knows this up front, s/he may decide that it is not worth the time and expense to even … Keep reading

TAGS: , ,