Non-Compete, Trade Secret & Confidentiality Litigation & Negotiation

We are a Law Firm Specializing In Non-Compete Agreements, Trade Secret Law, Customer List Litigation. Our team is positioned to provide the representation and legal advice which will ensure you understand your legal rights, with offices in Detroit, Michigan and Traverse City Michigan and Los Angeles, California.

Our lawyers have handled complex cases involving millions of dollars in alleged damages, taking several cases to trial on behalf of national and international corporations.  Our non-compete and trade secret attorneys have advised employees, managers, owners and employers in the negotiation of non-competition contracts and helped companies protect their valuable intellectual and intangible property rights. In many instances, immediate injunctive relief is both appropriate and necessary to stop unlawful behavior before customers are lost or the unlawful behavior irreparably harms company interests.

Managing Partner Enrico Schaefer: "Traverse Legal's attorneys know non-compete and trade secret law and pride themselves on advanced litigation techniques which are both cost-effective and budget oriented.  When it comes to technology, there are very few firms that can match our capabilities. Because we are a boutique litigation law firm, we know how to strategically and efficiently accomplish our client's goals. "

If you have an issue involving non-compete agreements, trade secret theft, customer list theft or breach of fiduciary duties by corporate mangers, officers or owners, our lawyers can provide you the legal advice you need to fully protect your rights. Contact us today at 866.936.7447 (international toll free) or send us an email for a no-risk consultation.

California Weakens Enforcement of Non-compete Agreements

The California Supreme Court has ruled that employee non-compete agreements are not valid unless the agreement involves the sale of the business.  The court's opinion in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P. involved a certified public accountant who had signed a non-compete agreement with a former employee.  In exiting his former employment, the employee was asked to sign a termination of non-compete agreement with other release provisions in it in which the employee refused to sign.  Subsequently the employee went to work for another employer.  The court held that because the non-compete agreements are generally invalid, that the consideration for demanding release of an invalid non-compete agreement could be considered a wrongful act and illegal under California law. 

The Edwards Decision is a significant clarification in California law and likely a trend in the unwillingness of courts generally to enforce questionable non-compete agreements in a down business climate. 
 

Non-compete Attorneys: Recent Non-Compete Issues across the World Wide Web

Traverse Legal’s lawyers constantly monitor the latest information on the World Wide Web concerning non-compete issues. Here is this week's roundup:

Appeals court rules in doctor's favor
Chicago Tribune - United States
The university and others claimed that Dr. Thomas Warren, who served as an assistant professor for the College of Medicine, violated a noncompete agreement. ...

Appeals court denies Univ. of Iowa injunction involving former ...
Gazette Online - Solon,IA,USA
The university claimed Dr. Thomas Warren, hired as an assistant professor with the College of Medicine in July 2001, violated a noncompete agreement. ...

WCSX Changes with the Times Whack JJ and the Morning Crew
By zudfunck at comcast dot net
That twosome have been dry-docked, in broadcast limbo while waiting out the non-compete clause in their CBS contract after leaving WXYT (97.1 FM/1270 AM) almost a year ago. Johnson had heard the D&D rumor, and asked if that was behind ...

Non-Compete Not Enforced
By Legal Profession
The Iowa Court of Appeals declined to enforce a non-compete provision against a physician who had left his employment at the College of Medicine of the University of Iowa after concluding that he would not obtain tenure. ...

Trade Secret Attorneys: Recent Trade Secret Issues across the World Wide Web

Traverse Legal’s lawyers constantly monitor the latest information on the World Wide Web concerning trade secret issues. Here is this week's roundup:

Now, an alcoholic sandesh, hic
Hindustan Times - India
He, however, refused to reveal how the sweets will be prepared — “It’sa trade secret” — except to say that only three types of liquors — whisky, ...

Patents: Are They Worthwhile for a Start-up Company?
By Greg Kirsch
If the reverse-engineering is not possible (the invention doesn’t “reveal itself” from inspection or use), then trade secret protection may in some cases be the better choice. Of course, a trade secret only has value so long as it can ...

Cytokinetics Announces Preclinical and Clinical Trial Data ...
MarketWatch - USA
... ability to conduct clinical trials; Cytokinetics may be unable to obtain and maintain patent or trade secret protection for its intellectual property; ...

Non-compete Attorneys: Recent Non-Compete Issues across the World Wide Web

Traverse Legal’s lawyers constantly monitor the latest information on the World Wide Web concerning non-compete issues. Here is this week's round-up:

IMB Sues Its Ex-Employee for Leaving for Apple
By masum
But the former International Business Machines Corp. executive mark papermaster claimed that his move to Apple inc. to oversee development of its iPod and iPhone devices doesn’t violate a non-compete agreement he signed at IBM. ...

Papermaster Countersues To Escape IBM's Legal Hounds
But in a Thursday US District Court filing, Papermaster's lawyers argued that the scope of IBM's non-compete agreement is overly broad and that Apple and ...

Non-Compete Agreements - Striking the Right Balance
By Iula
One of the trickier agreements that companies must deal with is the Non-Compete Agreement, simply because the document needs to strike the right balance between protection and freedom. The non-compete agreement is a written...

Trade Secret Attorneys: Recent Trade Secret Issues across the World Wide Web

Traverse Legal’s lawyers constantly monitor the latest information on the World Wide Web concerning trade secret issues. Here is this week’s trade secret and idea protection round-up:

A Reasonable Route to ESI Confidentiality
Law.com - San Francisco,CA,USA Cincinnati Insurance Co., an opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that states: "a document that contains trade secrets may also...

The Tobacco Conspiracy: Why You Have Not Been Able to Quit Smoking
Tobacco may be natural but cigarettes are far more than tobacco with an estimated 4000 ingredients added! The list is highly guarded and protected by law as a trade secret. Imagine that. It’s the public’s health and it's a trade secret...

Protecting IP: Should an invention hold patent or trade-secret status? Four types of IP protection exist: copyright, patent, trademarks, and trade secrets. But which type of protection is best for your IP asset? The answer is found in the type of protections provided by patents and trade secrets...

Trade secrets are assets
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette - Fort Wayne,IN,USA It’s what lawyers call a trade secret. It’s what business owners call an asset. Trade secrets are the most easily created form of intellectual property ...

$60 Million Dollar Trade Secret Verdict Against Ex-Employee and New Employer For Divulging Confidential Information

Business to fight $60M verdict - Salt Lake Tribune

An executive with American National Insurance Co. said Monday that his firm will challenge a $60 million verdict awarded by a Utah jury this month to a rival company in a suit over the defection of agents.
James Pozzi, senior executive vice president with the Galveston, Texas-based company, said the punitive damages verdict - which was based on a claim that American National poached Farm Bureau Insurance Co. agents in southern Utah and misappropriated that agency's trade secrets - is excessive. He added that his company is evaluating a "number of legal actions" to overturn it.
....
A suit filed in U.S. District Court alleged that Darrin Ivie shared confidential information with American National while still working as a district manager for Farm Bureau's Zion's Cove agency. In addition, Ivie engaged in recruitment efforts that caused at least seven Farm Bureau agents and three recruits to leave the company to become American National employees, according to the lawsuit.
.... the federal jury on Aug. 8 awarded Farm Bureau $3,606,214 in compensatory damages. The 11 jurors also awarded punitive damages of $60 million against American National and its subsidiaries and $2.4 million against Gallacher.

Technorati Tags: trade secrets, verdict

Protecting Trade Secrets: Data Breach is Risk Factor

How to Keep Corporate Secrets a Secret

One of the problems with corporate data breaches is the catastrophic risk to corporations when trade secrets, customer lists, pricing data and other critical information are exposed. Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen and Harry Lewis, authors of "Blown to Bits: Your Life, Liberty, and Happiness after the Digital Explosion," explain how companies can use the right mix of process, people and advanced technologies to keep their data secure—and their CIOs out of the headlines.

Technorati Tags: trade secrets, intellectual property

Former Employees Get Sued For Trade Secret Theft by Honeywell International

Trade Secrets Blog: Honeywell Sues Akebono and Two Former Employees for Trade Secrets Theft

On July 24, 2008, Honeywell International sued Akebono Corporation, Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. and Sunil Kesavan and Ximming Shao for misappropriating trade secrets that relate to the making of fiction materials for automotive brake pads.

Honeywell claims that a secret process one of its employees designed for the making of automative brake pad materials has been maintained as a trade secret from 1996 until the present. Honeywell further claims that Kesavan and Shao, who left employment with Honeywell in 2002 and 1999 respectively, began work with Akebono and used information Honeywell maintained to research and develop, and ultimately received a US patent for, brake systems that utilize Honeywell's confidential and trade secret information.

Honeywell is now trying to get the genie back in the bottle. Their first two claims for relief are to have the Akebono patent declared the property of Honeywell and correct the "named inventor" for the patent to be exclusively their employee (see http://uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_256.htm) and not Kesavan and Shao and, ultimately, Akebono.

The case is filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and is case number 2:08-CV-13197.

Most employees fail to realize that trade secrets, ideas and inventions often belong to the employer. Non-compete agreements are often overlooked when seeking new employment. In Michigan, non-compete agreements are often enforceable and trade secrets are protected.

Technorati Tags: non-compete, trade secret, intellectual property, patents

Traverse Legal Trade Secret and Non-Compete News Alerts for Monday, July 21, 2008

Motorola has sued an ex-employee and now current Apple executive for violating a two-year non-compete agreement.  Motorola is claiming that the former employee cannot perform his job for Apple without disclosing Motorola trade secrets.

Former HP Vice President Charged With Stealing IBM Trade Secrets

It seems that not even the highest corporate positions are secure from trade secret theft.  Wired Magazine is reporting that the former Vice President of Hewlett Packard, Atul Malhotra, has been charged with violating IBM's trade secrets.  Malhotra worked for IBM as the Director of Sales and Business Development for its printer division.  During his time there, Malhotra allegedly took confidential documents, CC Calibration Metrics, that IBM had marked “IBM Confidential” on each page.  Malhotra was told not to distribute the information by IBM's Global Services Pricing Coordinator.

IBM v. PSI: Trade Secret Beheamoths

The trade secret dispute between IBM and PSI, two competitors in the highly profitable mainframe market, has taken another turn with PSI’s recent summary judgment filing on April 23.  This case emphasizes the importance of timely investigating and prosecuting your rights in trade secret cases.  A failure to assert your rights upon first noticing that your trade secrets may have been misappropriated can jeopardize your case later.  It is important to protect your trade secrets both in business dealings and in court.

Protecting Company Data is More Important Than Ever

When you hear the phrase “trade secret,” it often brings to mind an image of the secrets that companies want to keep safe from their competitors.  But companies need to protect the personal information of their customers as well, whether on a laptop, Blackberry, iPhone, point of sale device, or when sent over a wireless or wired network.  Companies are not safe from lawsuits for the loss of this personal information, and they can be at increased risk if they store unencrypted customer data on laptops.  The Ninth Circuit has recently said that companies can be held liable for simply creating a risk that customer data will be stolen.

Memorized Customer Lists: Trade Secret Thoughtcrime?

Can a confidential customer list be a trade secret if it is merely memorized by a former employee if the employee didn't sign a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement?  According to the Ohio Supreme Court and the Ohio Trade Secrets Act it can. Robert Martin, a former employee of Al Minor & Associates, took 15 of his former clients with him when he left the company in 2003.  Martin remembered the customer information purely from memory and solicited those clients to a new company.  Upon hearing of this competition, Al Minor filed for damages and an injunction in the trial court.  The trial court referred the case to a magistrate, who awarded AMA $25,973 in fees that they otherwise would have earned from their former clients.

If you have a non-compete or trade secret issue you may contact one of our attorneys for a no-risk evaluation or call 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).

Duress As A Defense To Non-Compete Enforcement

In Michigan, duress will invalidate a non-compete agreement, but it is found only where the illegal act of the employer deprives the employee of the free will to choose to enter into the non-compete agreement. Duress will not be found where an employee entered into the agreement with full knowledge of all of the facts and with ample time for investigation, consultation, consideration, and reflection. Courts have stated that duress is not present where an employee had ample time to consult with an attorney and refuse to sign the agreement

Million Dollar Verdict in Michigan for Violation of Non-Compete Agreement

As Reported in the Macomb Daily Newspaper (Mt. Clemens, MI)

Retired auto dealer awarded $3 million on violation of non-compete by his daughter.

This case demonstrates the presumption of validity of non-compete agreements in Michigan and that juries are willing to enforce and have potential to generate large verdicts.

Companies Must Do More To Define and Protect Their Trade Secrets

GLOBAL WATER GROUP, INC., Appellant v. Robert ATCHLEY and Aspen Water, Inc., Appellee. (The Trade Secrets Vault)

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. GLOBAL WATER GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. Robert ATCHLEY and Aspen Water, Inc., Appellee. No. 05-06-00709-CV. Jan. 9, 2008.
Rehearing Overruled Feb. 14, 2008.

Background: Water purification corporation filed lawsuit against its former president and his competing water purification company, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of shareholder agreement. Following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendants filed motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Robert Frost, J., granted motion. Plaintiff appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, O'Neill , J., held that:
(1) plaintiff's formula of compound used in "mixed media pod" during absorption step of water purification process was not a trade secret;
(2) sequence of process used by plaintiff in its water purification system was not a trade secret; and
(3) corporation's former president did not breach shareholder agreement.

Technorati Tags: trade secret, fiduciary, shareholder

Jury Finds Company Trade Secrets Enforceable: $17 Million in Punitive Damages Against Ex-Employees and New Employer

Trade Secret Jury Verdict : Innovative Technologies Corp. v. James Silcott et al. (The Trade Secrets Vault)

The jury awarded $6,475,855.44 in compensatory damages and $17 million in punitive damages in this massive trade secret theft verdict.

The jury found that the salaries of Innovative Technologies employees and its mapping strategies were trade secrets, or that Advanced Management Technologies and Kenton Trace Technologies misappropriated the plaintiff's trade secrets. Jurors found that the plaintiff suffered actual loss proximately caused by the defendants' misappropriation of its trade secrets or that the defendants were unjustly enriched by its misappropriation of the plaintiff's trade secrets.

They found that Advanced Management Technologies acted with purpose to procure contract breaches or terminate the business relationships the plaintiff had with its employees, and that there was no justification for Advanced Management Technologies' conduct. The jury found that Advanced Management Technologies' tortious interference with the plaintiff's business relationship and contracts with its employees was the proximate cause of the damages it suffered. Jurors found that Advanced Management Technologies engaged in a civil conspiracy with the individual defendants or the plaintiff's employees to cause it harm, which was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages.

The competing firm, Advanced Management Technology Inc. of Arlington, Va., was ordered to pay virtually all of the damages, Dyer said, having been found guilty of tortious inference with business relationships, civil conspiracy, and theft of trade secrets for acting in collusion with the former employees of Innovative Technologies.

Technorati Tags: trade secret, non-compete, jury, punitive damages

Severance Contracts: Executive Buy-Outs At General Motors

Here are some links which provide information on the GM severance plan offer first reported in March, 2006:

• CNN:  GM offers workers up to $140K to leave.  Click here.
• Delphi, GM Offers Get Mixed Reception Forbes
• GM Offers Early Retirement Plan for Hourly Workers Voice of America
• List of Seveance Contract Forms

Executive buy-out, severance and compensation issues are becoming more important as our economy heads towards recession and more companies are looking to downsize.  Our attorneys can help your company design and negotiate a severance plan for your executives, managers and employees. Contact us today.

Executive Severance Contracts: GM offers workers up to $140K to leave

Executive Level Severance Contracts Offered To GM Workers.

GM is offering money to its workers in order to entice those employees to voluntarily terminate employment (ie retire).  Severance / retirement packages are reportedly available to 113,000 workers.  GM also reportedly reached a deal with Delphi workers to avoid a labor dispute.

Non-Compete Agreement & Trade Secret Attorneys: The Employer Perspective

Non-Compete Assessment For Employers:  If you are an employer is looking to draft, upgrade or enforce a non-compete agreement, our attorneys can help you define a strategy which provides the greatest return on your legal dollars.  Developing a non-compete agreement is the easy part. Designing a strategy which enhances the likely enforecement of your agreement in court and protects your trade secrets should be your most important business goal. Especially in this difficult economic climate, the large number of employee layoffs and terminations make is cost prohibitive to drag every employee who violates their non-compete or discloses trade secrets into court. Wouldn't it be better to put a system in place which drastically improved employee compliance with their non-compete agreements?  Our attorneys can help your company understand you to protect its assets - on a flat fee defined deliverable basis - in the following areas: 

• Drafting or updating non-compete, trade secret and patent/invention agreements which will stand up in court.
• Developing a process and audit chain to ensure that each important employee has signed a non-compete contract and, as importantly, understands their non-compete obligaitons
• Designing and updating your trade secret and invention protection internal process.
• Enforceing your non-comepte agreements against employees by threat letter or litigation if ncessary.
• helping your company understand its options and providing attorney recommendations regarding risks and strategies.  

 As importantly, we can provide you the guidance and advice you need within a budget that works for you. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish.  Contact a non-compete attorney today for a no-risk consultation by calling 866.936.7447 (toll free) or sending us an email describing situation.

Attorney Mark Clark and the Traverse Legal team have included some resources below to help your company understand the intricacies of non-compete and trade secret issues:

What is a Non-Compete, Non-Solicaiton and Trade Secret Agreement? A non-compete agreement is an agreement signed by an employee or contractor where he/she agrees that they will not engage in certain employment within a certain geographic area for a certain period of time after they quit or are fired. A non-solicitation contract is an agreement signed by an employee or contractor where he/she agrees that they will not contact and/or solicit an employer's customers and/or remaining employees for a certain period of time after they quit or are fired. Trade secrets are docuemtns and information owned by the company which provide competitive advantage. 

This article will address non-compete, trade secret and non-solicitation agreements from the employers point of view.

What Every Employee Should Know About Non-Compete, Non-Solicitation Agreements

Non-Compete Assessment For Employees: (Flat Fee Pricing):  If you are an employee who has signed, or is being asked to sign, a non-compete agreement, our non-compete and trade secret attorneys can help you understand your legal rights on important issues such as: 

• Whether the non-compete agreement is likely enforceable.
• Your options and our recommendations regarding risks, strategies and options.  

As importantly, we can provide you the guidance and advice you need within a budget that works for you.  We have several flat fee options for a non-compete and trade secret assessment ranging in price from $400-$1,800 (depending on how much income is at stake) so that you can make an educated decision about your next steps. Too many employees end up penny wise and pound foolish, making decisions about their employment and non-compete issues without understanding the risks involved.  

Contact a non-compete attorney today for a no-risk consultation by calling 866.936.7447 (toll free) or sending us an email describing situation.

Our attorneys have included some resources below for your review:

Non-Compete Attorney Mark Clark Explains "What is a Non-Compete Agreement?" A non-compete and trade secret agreement is a contract signed by an employee where he or she agrees that they will not engage in certain employment within a certain geographic area for a certain period of time after they quit or are fired. Likewise, a non-solicitation agreements preclude a terminated employee from contacting the employer’s customers or remaining employees after leaving employment.

These restrictive agreements have become more prevalent in Michigan, especially in the technology sector where companies believe they have legitimate business interests that need to be protected.

Non-Compete Agreements: A Primer on non-compete, non-solicitation and trade secret protection

Companies need to protect their trade secrets, confidential information and intangible property.  Non-compete, non-solicitation and trade secret agreements are important devices which can help increase company protection against misappropriation of trade secrets.  In general:

1. the broader the non-compete clause, the less enforceable it is;
2. the more an employee has access to confidential information or trade secrets, the more enforceable it is;
3. additional compensation paid for a non-compete clause makes a non-compete  more enforceable (although no additional compensation may be necessary at all).

Michigan Sales Representatives Commission Act

The Michigan Sales Representatives Commission Act ("SRCA"), MCLA 600.2961, provides protection for independent sales representatives from manufacturers or suppliers who improperly refuse to pay commissions for goods sold.  The SRCA requires that commissions be paid to sales representatives on a timely basis. The terms of the contract between the principal and the sales representative will determine when a commission becomes due. However, if the agreement does not state when the commissions are due, the past practices between the parties will control. If there are no past practices between the parties, the custom and use prevalent in the state for that business controls.

If a sales representative's contract is terminated, all commissions that are due at the time of the termination must be paid within 45 days after the date of termination. If commissions become due after the termination date of the agreement, they must be paid within 45 days after the date in which they became due. The requirements of the SRCA cannot be waived by contract.

Under SRCA, a manufacturer or supplier who fails to comply with the law for timely payment of commissions is responsible for actual damages for failure to pay the commissions and, if the manufacturer or supplier is found to have "intentionally" failed to pay the commissions when due, the sales representative is also entitled to two times the amount of the commission or $100,000, whichever is less. If the sales representative files a lawsuit pursuant to the SRCA, the court is also required to award the prevailing party reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs.

Up to this point, it has been unclear what the word "intentional" in the Act means; i.e., whether it requires an act of bad faith or simply means the withholding of a commission on any basis other than inadvertent error or accident. Recently a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision has requested the Michigan Supreme Court to define the term "intentional" in the statute. Should the Michigan Supreme Court decide that the word intentional does not require a showing of bad faith, the SRCA will continue to be a significant danger to those manufacturers and suppliers who wish to withhold commissions from a salesperson, even if they do it in good faith. Until the Michigan Supreme Court rules on this question, manufacturers and suppliers should operate with caution as they may be liable for the double damages even if they withhold commissions based on a good faith disagreement with the sales representative.

At a minimum, though, manufacturers should make sure that the contract with their sales representatives explicitly sets forth when and under what circumstances a commission is going to be paid. If a part of a commission is disputed but a part is not, the undisputed part should be paid. Should a decision be made to not pay a commission, manufacturers and suppliers should fully document their reasons for withholding it. This will allow them to more easily make the argument that the commissions were not owed to the sales representative if the sales representative later files suit for those commissions. If there are significant dollars involved, it may be wise for the parties to a commission dispute to consult legal counsel early in the dispute process.

Michigan Statute Re Enforcability of Non-Compete Contracts

It is the public policy of Michigan as embodied by statute to enforce reasonable non-competition provisions in employment contracts.  According to Michigan law, non-compete agreement is enforceable provided it is reasonable with respect to duration, geographical area, and line of business it seeks to limit. Employer's legitimate business interest that will justify restrictive covenant in employment contract must be something greater than mere competition, since prohibition on all competition is in restraint of trade; to be reasonable, restrictive covenant must protect against employee gaining some unfair advantage in competition with his employer but not prohibit employee's future use of general knowledge or skill.
_________________________________________________________

M.C.L.A. 445.774a   (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated )

Chapter 445. Trade and Commerce:   Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (Refs & Annos)

445.774a. Agreements not to compete; application

Sec. 4a. (1) An employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or covenant which protects an employer's reasonable competitive business interests and expressly prohibits an employee from engaging in employment or a line of business after termination of employment if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business. To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court may limit the agreement to render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was made and specifically enforce the agreement as limited.

(2) This section shall apply to covenants and agreements which are entered into after March 29, 1985.
_______________________________________________________

If you have a question concerning this statute or its applicaiton to you or your business, you should contact an attorney. 

Michigan Non-Compete, Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation Agreements

Attorney Mark Clark: "We live in a highly competitive world where highly paid executives and business persons  gain access to corporate trade information and knowledge, customer lists and other proprietary information.  Unlike prior times, these executives and other employees are highly mobile, moving between companies and jobs, even between competitors. Michigan courts and the Michigan legislature ave recently tried to deal with the realities of our 21rst century marketplace in dealing with the enforceability of non-compete agreements."

If you have an issue involving non-compete agreements, trade secret theft, customer list theft or breach of fiduciary duties by corporate mangers, officers or owners, our lawyers can provide you the legal advice you need to fully protect your rights. Contact us today at 866.936.7447 (international toll free) or send us an email for a no-risk consultation.

In Michigan, the validity of non-compete agreements is governed by section 4a of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, a statute passed by the Legislature in 1987, as well as the many cases interpreting that statute. Together, the statute and the case law set forth the parameters defining those agreements that are enforceable and those that are not.  The statute seeks to strike a compromise between the protection of an employer’s competitive business interests and an employee’s right to earn a living. As such, courts interpreting non-compete agreements focus their analysis in four areas: