Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission voted to adopt a new rule that limits noncompete clauses/agreements (the rule). The rule is slated to go into effect on Sept. 4, 2024. This article summarizes the rule, some pending challenges to the rule, and strategies that businesses should consider implementing today to protect their interests.
Beginning on Sept. 4, the rule will generally prohibit employers from entering new noncompete clauses with workers. The rule treats existing noncompete agreements differently depending on whether the worker is a "senior executive," which includes workers who: 1) earn more than $151,164 and 2) are in a "policy-making" position. For these, existing noncompete clauses remain valid and enforceable. For all other workers, existing noncompete clauses will no longer be enforceable. Additionally, employers must inform such other workers that any existing noncompete clauses are no longer enforceable.
The rule contains several exceptions. For example, the rule does not apply to noncompete agreements related to a bona fide sale of a business entity. The rule also does not apply where a cause of action related to the noncompete accrued prior to Sept. 4, 2024. It also does not apply to entities outside the FTC's jurisdiction, including certain banks, nonprofits, and state and local government agencies. The rule also provides a "good faith" exception, which provides that it is not unfair competition for a company to enforce or attempt to enforce a noncompete clause if it believes in good faith that the rule is inapplicable. Notably, however, the rule does not contain an exception for workers with access to trade secrets, which has been adopted by some jurisdictions that had previously banned noncompete clauses. The FTC determined that such an exception was unnecessary in view of other less-restrictive alternatives that companies can implement.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?