In an important new case, the Supreme Court of Virginia has clearly held that breach of contract will not support a claim of statutory business conspiracy under Sections 18.2-499 and 500 of the Code of Virginia. The case, Station #2, LLC v. Lynch, (Virginia, June 10, 2010), click here, involved a claim that Lynch and others had conspired to deny Station #2 the ability to soundproof a portion of leased space above a restaurant it operated in Norfolk, Virginia. As a result of the dispute, the City of Norfolk ordered the restaurant to cease all live musical performances, and ultimately the restaurant failed.
In its Complaint, Station #2 argued that the breach of Lynch's agreement to allow the soundproofing satisfied the unlawful act or unlawful purpose requirement of Sections 18.2-499 and 500. The Supreme Court disagreed.
The Court held that: "[W]e presently are of opinion that a conspiracy merely to breach a contract that does not involve an independent duty arising outside the contract is insufficient to establish a civil claim under Code Section 18.2-500." It added: "To permit a mere breach of contract to constitute an 'unlawful act' for the purposes of the conspiracy statute would be inconsistent with the diligence we have exercised to prevent 'turning every breach of contract into an actionable claim for fraud,'" quoting Dunn Constr. Co. v. Cloney, 682 S.E.2d 943, 946 (Va. 2009); Augusta Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mason , 645 S.E.2d 290, 295 (Va. 2007); Richmond Metro Auth. v. McDevitt Street Bovis, Inc., 507 S.E.2d 344, 348 (Va. 1998). According to the Court, to support a statutory conspiracy claim, the duty must arise from a statute or independently by common law.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Protocol: The Financial Services Industry Potentially Changes the Common Law By Contract
This blog has discussed the concepts of employee fiduciary duties, proprietary and trade secret information and corporate raids in many contexts. But what if an entire industry or major players within that industry negotiate a method for handling: (1) how employees leave their employers; (2) what types of information they can take with them; and (3) whether “corporate raids” are acceptable? Are such agreements enforceable between the parties to such an agreement? And what about companies in that industry that are not parties to the agreement?
That scenario presented itself to my firm several weeks ago in a litigation matter when a large financial services company filed a law suit, claiming that our clients, two of the plaintiff’s former financial advisors and their newly formed company, misappropriated the plaintiff company’s trade secrets. The plaintiff also asserted that the former employees violated their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff company. What is important is not the result of this particular case—we as blog authors do not talk about our specific cases anyway—but the financial services industry’s attempt to shift the common and statutory law by contract.
The shift is designed by the over thirty financial services companies that are signatories to the “Protocol for Broker Recruiting”. The Protocol provides that: “If departing [brokers] and the new firm follow this Protocol, neither the departing [advisor] nor the firm that he or she joins would have any monetary or other liability to the firm that the [advisor] left by reason of the [advisor] taking the information identified below or the solicitation of the clients serviced by the [advisor] at his or her prior firm, provided, however, that this Protocol does not bar or otherwise affect the ability of the prior firm to bring an action against the new firm for “raiding.” The signatories to this Protocol agree to implement and adhere to it in good faith.”
The Protocol then describes what a departing advisor may copy when the advisor changes jobs: “[w]hen [advisors] move from one firm to another and both firms are signatories to this Protocol they may take only the following account information, client name, address, phone number, email address, and account title of the clients that they serviced while at the firm (“the Client Information”) and are prohibited from taking any of her documents or shall include a copy of the Client Information that the [advisor] is taking with him or her.”
The Protocol does not demand perfection from departing advisors. Rather, it offers advisors a safe harbor, provided that they operated in good faith and “substantially complied with the requirement that only Client Information related to clients he or she serviced while at the firm be taken by him or her.”
The Protocol’s impact upon trade secret law is potentially significant because companies will often claim that client account information constitutes trade secrets. But many courts consider the “crucial characteristic of a trade secret [to be] secrecy . . . .” Microstrategy Inc. v. Li, 268 Va. 249, 262 (Va. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Thus, if companies agree that the certain account information may be copied by a departing advisor—provided that the Protocol is followed and the departing advisor goes to another Protocol signatory firm—it becomes difficult to later contend that the account information constitutes a trade secret if either of the prerequisites are not followed.
Similar questions may be raised regarding how the Protocol may affect an advisor’s common law fiduciary duties to the advisors employer or other unfair business practices tort claims.
There is also the question of how much impact being a signatory of the Protocol should have on a court’s decision. The Protocol only requires a party to be a signatory to receive the benefits when recruiting an advisor. Of course, it also subjects itself to the added risk of allowing departing advisors to take more information than might otherwise be allowed. But, a small company might elect to become a signatory immediately before recruiting advisors to shield their efforts from liability, without facing a practical threat of losing its own advisers. And there is no restriction limiting when a company can sign the Protocol or how long a company must remain a signatory. This is the system that the signatories elected, however, so a court might not have much sympathy to a complaining signatory company in that circumstance.
Some courts have used the Protocol as a reason not to grant an injunction, holding that when a financial services company “permits its financial advisors to leave for 38 other financial institutions and solicit their former clients with Client Information they took from [the company], it cannot credibly contend that the harm that will result if . . . [defendants are] allowed to do the same at a 39th firm is so substantial and so irreparable. . .” as to require an injunction. Smith Barney Div. of Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Griffin, 23 Mass. L. Rep. 457; 2008 WL 325269 at *5 (Mass. Super. 2008). The court further held that “[b]y setting up such a procedure for departing brokers to take client lists, [the financial services firm] tacitly accepts that such an occurrence does not cause irreparable harm.’” Id.; quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Brennan, et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34501 at *7 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (finding that in the case where client contact information is transferred to non-Protocol firms, mere agreement to the Protocol constitutes tacit acceptance that transfers of client contact information do not cause irreparable harm).
It will be interesting to see whether and how courts in the Washington DC area treat the Protocol when faced with one of the myriad issues associated with competing companies, departing employees and the removal of otherwise confidential information.
That scenario presented itself to my firm several weeks ago in a litigation matter when a large financial services company filed a law suit, claiming that our clients, two of the plaintiff’s former financial advisors and their newly formed company, misappropriated the plaintiff company’s trade secrets. The plaintiff also asserted that the former employees violated their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff company. What is important is not the result of this particular case—we as blog authors do not talk about our specific cases anyway—but the financial services industry’s attempt to shift the common and statutory law by contract.
The shift is designed by the over thirty financial services companies that are signatories to the “Protocol for Broker Recruiting”. The Protocol provides that: “If departing [brokers] and the new firm follow this Protocol, neither the departing [advisor] nor the firm that he or she joins would have any monetary or other liability to the firm that the [advisor] left by reason of the [advisor] taking the information identified below or the solicitation of the clients serviced by the [advisor] at his or her prior firm, provided, however, that this Protocol does not bar or otherwise affect the ability of the prior firm to bring an action against the new firm for “raiding.” The signatories to this Protocol agree to implement and adhere to it in good faith.”
The Protocol then describes what a departing advisor may copy when the advisor changes jobs: “[w]hen [advisors] move from one firm to another and both firms are signatories to this Protocol they may take only the following account information, client name, address, phone number, email address, and account title of the clients that they serviced while at the firm (“the Client Information”) and are prohibited from taking any of her documents or shall include a copy of the Client Information that the [advisor] is taking with him or her.”
The Protocol does not demand perfection from departing advisors. Rather, it offers advisors a safe harbor, provided that they operated in good faith and “substantially complied with the requirement that only Client Information related to clients he or she serviced while at the firm be taken by him or her.”
The Protocol’s impact upon trade secret law is potentially significant because companies will often claim that client account information constitutes trade secrets. But many courts consider the “crucial characteristic of a trade secret [to be] secrecy . . . .” Microstrategy Inc. v. Li, 268 Va. 249, 262 (Va. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Thus, if companies agree that the certain account information may be copied by a departing advisor—provided that the Protocol is followed and the departing advisor goes to another Protocol signatory firm—it becomes difficult to later contend that the account information constitutes a trade secret if either of the prerequisites are not followed.
Similar questions may be raised regarding how the Protocol may affect an advisor’s common law fiduciary duties to the advisors employer or other unfair business practices tort claims.
There is also the question of how much impact being a signatory of the Protocol should have on a court’s decision. The Protocol only requires a party to be a signatory to receive the benefits when recruiting an advisor. Of course, it also subjects itself to the added risk of allowing departing advisors to take more information than might otherwise be allowed. But, a small company might elect to become a signatory immediately before recruiting advisors to shield their efforts from liability, without facing a practical threat of losing its own advisers. And there is no restriction limiting when a company can sign the Protocol or how long a company must remain a signatory. This is the system that the signatories elected, however, so a court might not have much sympathy to a complaining signatory company in that circumstance.
Some courts have used the Protocol as a reason not to grant an injunction, holding that when a financial services company “permits its financial advisors to leave for 38 other financial institutions and solicit their former clients with Client Information they took from [the company], it cannot credibly contend that the harm that will result if . . . [defendants are] allowed to do the same at a 39th firm is so substantial and so irreparable. . .” as to require an injunction. Smith Barney Div. of Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Griffin, 23 Mass. L. Rep. 457; 2008 WL 325269 at *5 (Mass. Super. 2008). The court further held that “[b]y setting up such a procedure for departing brokers to take client lists, [the financial services firm] tacitly accepts that such an occurrence does not cause irreparable harm.’” Id.; quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Brennan, et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34501 at *7 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (finding that in the case where client contact information is transferred to non-Protocol firms, mere agreement to the Protocol constitutes tacit acceptance that transfers of client contact information do not cause irreparable harm).
It will be interesting to see whether and how courts in the Washington DC area treat the Protocol when faced with one of the myriad issues associated with competing companies, departing employees and the removal of otherwise confidential information.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Maryland Court Upholds Non-compete Covenant and Enters Prospective Permanent Injunction
The United States District Court for Maryland recently granted summary judgment in a case upholding a covenant not to compete involving a former Director of Strategic Accounts for TEKsystems, Inc. In doing so, it signaled a willingness on the part of Maryland courts to enforce such covenants even where there was no evidence of lost profits by the employer. TEKsystems, Inc. v. Bolton, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9651 (February 4, 2010). Click here.
TEKsystems is a technical staffing and services company. Jonathan Bolton worked in the New York City region. At the time he was hired he entered into an employment agreement containing a restrictive covenant that barred him from "engaging in the business of recruiting or providing on a temporary or permanent basis technical service personnel ... industrial personnel ... or office support personnel ... within a radius of fifty (50) miles of the office in which EMPLOYEE worked at the time his/her employment ended ..." The covenant effectively barred him from competing in the New York City area.
After resigning from TEKsystems, Bolton became employed by another IT-staffing company and operated from his home in New Jersey that was within the 50 mile radius of his former office. He was given the title "Managing Director of New York City." The evidence established that during his first year in the new position Bolton made nine placements, none of which were to companies that had been TEKsystems' clients. TEKsystems sued to enforce the covenant not to compete and sought both injunctive relief and damages.
The employment agreement provided that any dispute arising under the contract would be governed by the law of Maryland. In its opinion, the district court provides a thorough discussion of Maryland's law relating to the enforcement of covenants not to compete. Bolton challenged the covenant on the basis that it was overbroad, failed to protect a legitimate business interest, imposed an undue hardship on him and violated the public's interest.
Under Maryland law, covenants will be enforced "if the restraint is confined within limits which are no wider as to area and duration than are reasonable for the protection of the business of the employer and do not impose undue hardship on the employee or disregard the interests of the public." Id. at *12, quoting Ruhl v. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., 225 A.2d 288 (Md. 1967). Where the scope is reasonable, courts may also consider other factors, such as: "whether the person sought to be enjoined is an unskilled worker whose services are not unique; whether the covenant is necessary to prevent the solicitation of customers or the use of trade secrets, assigned routes, or private customer lists; whether there is any exploitation of the personal contacts between the employee and customer; and, whether enforcement of the clause would impose an undue hardship on the employee or disregard the interests of the public." Bolton, at *12-13, quoting Budget Rent A Car of Wash., Inc. v. Raab, 302 A.2d 11 (Md. 1973).
The court first upheld the 50 mile radius geographic scope of the covenant, noting that Maryland courts had upheld covenants that had unlimited geographic limitations. It found significant that, while TEKsystems operated nationally and internationally, the covenant only applied to the New York City area. The court also found the 18 month period to be reasonable, as Maryland courts have routinely upheld covenants that spanned two years.
Bolton also charged that the covenant was overbroad in that it barred him from engaging "in any activity which may affect adversely the interests of the Company." The court rejected the argument, noting that Maryland courts have "sanctioned restrictive covenants that prohibit former employees from securing employment with competitors." Bolton at *15.
It also noted that employers have a protective interest in preventing an employee from using customer contacts post employment, especially where the "personal contacts between the employee and the customer are an important element determining the business's success." Id. at 16-17, quoting Intelus Corp. v. Barton, 7 F. Supp.2d 635, 639 (D. Md. 1998). Here, the court found that TEKsystem's business depended overwhelmingly on the personal connections between its employees and its clients, and Bolton was one of TEKsystem's most important employees in the New York City area. In Maryland "[c]ourts are more willing to enforce restrictive covenants when the employee at issue possesses unique or specialized skills." Bolton at *18.
Bolton also claimed that enforcing the covenant would create an undue hardship on him because it barred him from bompeting in the New York City area. Again the court rejected the argument, holding that, while such a claim might be inconvenient, it did not rise to a level of undue hardship.
Finally, the court considered the public interest at stake and noted that "the public benefits from the enforcement of reasonable restrictive covenants. ... Such measures facilitate and protect business growth, especially in technology-related and information-based fields." Id. at *20. And it quoted approvingly from Intelus, supra, regarding Maryland's policy as to such covenants: "As long as employers do not restrict employees from earning a living and do not limit fair competition, they must be given the opportunity to provide a service to their customers without risking a substantial loss of business and good will every time an employee decides to switch employment." Id. quoting Intelus , 7 F. Supp.2d at 642.
Turning to remedies, the court denied compensatory damages finding that there was no proof that any of TEKsystem's customers had paid any fees to Bolton for work with his new employer. It reserved, however, on the issue of whether the parties had a desire to litigate further on the damages issue.
And as for equitable relief, the court awarded a permanent injunction, barring Bolton from operating in the New York City area. It noted, however, that the original 18 month period had expired in December 2009. Given prior Maryland precedent that "if the non-compete period is not enforced through equitable extension, it could 'reward the breach of contract, encourage protracted litigation, and provide an incentive to dilatory tactics,'" Bolton at *28, quoting PADCO Advisors, Inc. v. Omdahl, 179 F. Supp.2d 600, 613 (D. Md. 2002)(quoting Roanoke Engineering Sales Co. v. Rosenbaum, 290 S.E.2d 882 (Va. 1982)) the court prospectively enjoined Bolton from violating the terms of his restrictive covenant for 18 months from the date of the court's order.
This case should be viewed as a cautionary tale to employees who are dismissive of the legal import of covenants not to compete that are governed by Maryland law.
TEKsystems is a technical staffing and services company. Jonathan Bolton worked in the New York City region. At the time he was hired he entered into an employment agreement containing a restrictive covenant that barred him from "engaging in the business of recruiting or providing on a temporary or permanent basis technical service personnel ... industrial personnel ... or office support personnel ... within a radius of fifty (50) miles of the office in which EMPLOYEE worked at the time his/her employment ended ..." The covenant effectively barred him from competing in the New York City area.
After resigning from TEKsystems, Bolton became employed by another IT-staffing company and operated from his home in New Jersey that was within the 50 mile radius of his former office. He was given the title "Managing Director of New York City." The evidence established that during his first year in the new position Bolton made nine placements, none of which were to companies that had been TEKsystems' clients. TEKsystems sued to enforce the covenant not to compete and sought both injunctive relief and damages.
The employment agreement provided that any dispute arising under the contract would be governed by the law of Maryland. In its opinion, the district court provides a thorough discussion of Maryland's law relating to the enforcement of covenants not to compete. Bolton challenged the covenant on the basis that it was overbroad, failed to protect a legitimate business interest, imposed an undue hardship on him and violated the public's interest.
Under Maryland law, covenants will be enforced "if the restraint is confined within limits which are no wider as to area and duration than are reasonable for the protection of the business of the employer and do not impose undue hardship on the employee or disregard the interests of the public." Id. at *12, quoting Ruhl v. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., 225 A.2d 288 (Md. 1967). Where the scope is reasonable, courts may also consider other factors, such as: "whether the person sought to be enjoined is an unskilled worker whose services are not unique; whether the covenant is necessary to prevent the solicitation of customers or the use of trade secrets, assigned routes, or private customer lists; whether there is any exploitation of the personal contacts between the employee and customer; and, whether enforcement of the clause would impose an undue hardship on the employee or disregard the interests of the public." Bolton, at *12-13, quoting Budget Rent A Car of Wash., Inc. v. Raab, 302 A.2d 11 (Md. 1973).
The court first upheld the 50 mile radius geographic scope of the covenant, noting that Maryland courts had upheld covenants that had unlimited geographic limitations. It found significant that, while TEKsystems operated nationally and internationally, the covenant only applied to the New York City area. The court also found the 18 month period to be reasonable, as Maryland courts have routinely upheld covenants that spanned two years.
Bolton also charged that the covenant was overbroad in that it barred him from engaging "in any activity which may affect adversely the interests of the Company." The court rejected the argument, noting that Maryland courts have "sanctioned restrictive covenants that prohibit former employees from securing employment with competitors." Bolton at *15.
It also noted that employers have a protective interest in preventing an employee from using customer contacts post employment, especially where the "personal contacts between the employee and the customer are an important element determining the business's success." Id. at 16-17, quoting Intelus Corp. v. Barton, 7 F. Supp.2d 635, 639 (D. Md. 1998). Here, the court found that TEKsystem's business depended overwhelmingly on the personal connections between its employees and its clients, and Bolton was one of TEKsystem's most important employees in the New York City area. In Maryland "[c]ourts are more willing to enforce restrictive covenants when the employee at issue possesses unique or specialized skills." Bolton at *18.
Bolton also claimed that enforcing the covenant would create an undue hardship on him because it barred him from bompeting in the New York City area. Again the court rejected the argument, holding that, while such a claim might be inconvenient, it did not rise to a level of undue hardship.
Finally, the court considered the public interest at stake and noted that "the public benefits from the enforcement of reasonable restrictive covenants. ... Such measures facilitate and protect business growth, especially in technology-related and information-based fields." Id. at *20. And it quoted approvingly from Intelus, supra, regarding Maryland's policy as to such covenants: "As long as employers do not restrict employees from earning a living and do not limit fair competition, they must be given the opportunity to provide a service to their customers without risking a substantial loss of business and good will every time an employee decides to switch employment." Id. quoting Intelus , 7 F. Supp.2d at 642.
Turning to remedies, the court denied compensatory damages finding that there was no proof that any of TEKsystem's customers had paid any fees to Bolton for work with his new employer. It reserved, however, on the issue of whether the parties had a desire to litigate further on the damages issue.
And as for equitable relief, the court awarded a permanent injunction, barring Bolton from operating in the New York City area. It noted, however, that the original 18 month period had expired in December 2009. Given prior Maryland precedent that "if the non-compete period is not enforced through equitable extension, it could 'reward the breach of contract, encourage protracted litigation, and provide an incentive to dilatory tactics,'" Bolton at *28, quoting PADCO Advisors, Inc. v. Omdahl, 179 F. Supp.2d 600, 613 (D. Md. 2002)(quoting Roanoke Engineering Sales Co. v. Rosenbaum, 290 S.E.2d 882 (Va. 1982)) the court prospectively enjoined Bolton from violating the terms of his restrictive covenant for 18 months from the date of the court's order.
This case should be viewed as a cautionary tale to employees who are dismissive of the legal import of covenants not to compete that are governed by Maryland law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
