Be Reasonable: The Enforceability of Post-termination Restrictive Covenants

Be Reasonable: The Enforceability of Post-termination Restrictive CovenantsThe impact on working arrangements caused by the pandemic has led many workers to re-evaluate what they want from a job, with considerations such as flexible and remote working becoming both more desirable and attainable. This is affecting businesses in all sectors, and the impact it can have is not only on a business’s workforce but also on its customer base that is far reaching.

One of the most important things to consider when a worker leaves a business is restrictive covenants. These are often contained in the employee’s employment contract, service agreement or, in some circumstances, a shareholders agreement.

Read More

Case Update: Dwyer v Fredbar in the Court of Appeal

Case Update: Dwyer v Fredbar in the Court of Appeal

In our previous article about post-termination restrictive covenants we discussed the High Court case of Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited [2021] EWHC 1218 as an example of covenants being found unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. Since then, the Claimant has appealed the judgment and the Court of Appeal has once again found in favor of the Defendant. So what does this mean for those trying to enforce, or avoid, restrictive covenants?

The Facts

The facts of the case are set out in our previous article (link above). However, in short, the Claimant (Dwyer) is the franchisor of ‘Drain Doctor’,

Read More

Case Update: Dwyer v Fredbar in the Court of Appeal

Case Update: Dwyer v Fredbar in the Court of Appeal

In our previous article about post-termination restrictive covenants we discussed the High Court case of Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited [2021] EWHC 1218 as an example of covenants being found unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. Since then, the Claimant has appealed the judgment and the Court of Appeal has once again found in favor of the Defendant. So what does this mean for those trying to enforce, or avoid, restrictive covenants?

The Facts

The facts of the case are set out in our previous article (link above). However, in short, the Claimant (Dwyer) is the franchisor of ‘Drain Doctor’,

Read More

Bipartisan Bill Introduced by Senate relating to Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020

Bipartisan Bill Introduced by Senate relating to Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020

On August 2, 2022, Senators Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) and Marco Rubio (R-Florida) introduced the Sanctioning Supporters of Slave Labor Act, legislation that would expand the categories of persons that could be sanctioned under the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020 (UHRPA). Rep. Jim Banks (R-Indiana) filed a companion in the House of Representatives.

Currently, UHRPA imposes sanctions on certain entities and individuals named by the President as allegedly having committed certain human rights violations in Xinjiang. The bill would expand the scope of this reporting requirement to include “every foreign person who knowingly provides significant goods, services, or

Read More

DHS Released a Notice on the Addition of Entities to the UFLPA Entity List

DHS Released a Notice on the Addition of Entities to the UFLPA Entity List

On August 4, 2022, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as the Chair of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), formally published the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List. The Entity list is a consolidated register of the four lists required to be developed and maintained pursuant to Section 2(d)(2)(B) of the UFLPA. DHS also released details on seeking changes to the UFLPA Entity List, including requests for removal from the list.

For our previous blog entries on the UFLPA and its implementation, see posts here, here, here, here, here and here.

UFLPA requires the Commissioner

Read More

DHS Released a Notice on the Addition of Entities to the UFLPA Entity List

DHS Released a Notice on the Addition of Entities to the UFLPA Entity List

On August 4, 2022, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as the Chair of the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF), formally published the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) Entity List. The Entity list is a consolidated register of the four lists required to be developed and maintained pursuant to Section 2(d)(2)(B) of the UFLPA. DHS also released details on seeking changes to the UFLPA Entity List, including requests for removal from the list.

For our previous blog entries on the UFLPA and its implementation, see posts here, here, here, here, here and here.

UFLPA requires the Commissioner

Read More

Upcoming Webinar: 2022 Chemicals Workshop Webinar Series: PFAS, REACH and Other Chemical Regulatory Issues

Upcoming Webinar: 2022 Chemicals Workshop Webinar Series: PFAS, REACH and Other Chemical Regulatory IssuesUpcoming Webinar: 2022 Chemicals Workshop Webinar Series: PFAS, REACH and Other Chemical Regulatory Issues

Please join us on Thursday, October 13 at 12PM EDT for 2022 Chemicals Workshop Webinar Series: PFAS, REACH and Other Chemical Regulatory Issues.

Join Allen Kacenjar, Lianne Mantione and Anita Lloyd for the second webinar in our two-part 2022 Chemicals Workshop webinar series, in partnership with the Ohio Chemistry Technology Council (OCTC).

In this session, we will provide an overview of the rapidly evolving landscape related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including proposed listing of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation , and the Liability Act (CERCLA), regulation under

Read More

100 Industry Organizations Request Extension of Comment Period on FTC’s Proposed Noncompete Ban

As we predicted, earlier today, 100 industry organizations submitted a request to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to extend the comment period for its proposed rule banning non-competes nationwide by an additional 60 days. According to the letter, “[t]he regulated community should be given sufficient time to assess the potential consequences of the rulemaking and develop insightful comments for the Commission to consider.” The letter further states:

This rulemaking, as the FTC itself acknowledges, will impact a significant portion of the economy. Given the breadth of the rules, a sufficient comment period is needed to ensure the regulated community can

Read More