Ancillary to Sale of a Business or Employment Agreement

Restrictive Covenants Ancillary to the Sale of a Business or an Employment Agreement

In a sale of a company or substantially all its assets, it is common for company founders and key executives, sales people or other important employees to be retained after the acquisition to assist in the transition of the company. It is also common for these people to sign restrictive covenants, i.e., non-competition, non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements, all of which are routinely part and parcel to the acquiring company’s ability to protect its acquired assets and interests going forward. Our discussion regarding consideration for such contracts is here.

Whether such restrictive covenants are ancillary to the sale of a business or an employment contract matters, legally, to determine if a court will enforce them in the event of an alleged breach. The distinction is important, because if ancillary to the sale of a business, courts generally scrutinize these contracts far less and enforce them more frequently than if part of an employment contract.

The central question raised by the distinction between ancillary to a sale of a business or an employment contract is whether the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant has a legitimate business purpose or in related contexts, any protectable interest in confidential information that is ostensibly protected from disclosure. Our discussion of legitimate business purpose to support the enforceability of a restrictive covenant is here.

The factual scenario that can raise a blurred distinction between ancillary to the sale of a business or an employment agreement usually looks something like this:

A purchases B. Smith, B’s founder, becomes an employee of A as part of the acquisition terms. Upon becoming A’s employee, Smith signed a restrictive covenant and confidentiality agreement with A. Smith later resigns but continues working in the same industry. Smith files a declaratory judgment suit seeking a declaration that his restrictive covenants and confidentiality agreement were unenforceable. A counterclaims against Smith based upon his breach of the restrictive covenant and confidentiality agreement.

(An equally common procedural scenario would be A sues Smith as plaintiff to enjoin Smith from working and competing in the same industry and disclosing confidential information, and Smith counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-enforceability). Our discussion on injunctions and emergency relief in business disputes is here. Our discussion about enforcing restrictive covenants limited to the industry for which they are intended is here.

The court must analyze whether the restrictive covenants were ancillary to Smith’s employment relationship with A (as Smith will surely argue), or whether they were ancillary to A’s acquisition of B’s business (as A will surely argue). If ancillary to Smith’s employment relationship with A, then A must prove that any restrictions on Smith are reasonable in duration, geographical area and scope of prohibited activity, and that it has a protectable interest in either near-permanent customer relationships or confidential information.

If ancillary to A’s acquisition of B’s business, then A must establish only that the restrictions were reasonable in duration, geographical area and scope of prohibited activity. This is the difference between the leniency courts tend to show restrictions ancillary to a business sale versus an employment agreement.

An important threshold factor a court could consider to determine to whether a restriction is ancillary to a business sale or employment agreement is whether Smith’s restrictive covenant was a condition precedent to A’s purchase of B. In other words, did A’s purchase agreement with B incorporate Smith’s agreement, and did it identify Smith’s restrictive covenant as a prerequisite (condition precedent) to consummating the acquisition? Or, was A contractually obligated to complete its purchase of B regardless whether Smith would agree to become A’s employee and sign a restrictive covenant?

A court would also consider whether A can demonstrate a protectable interest, i.e., a legitimate business purpose, on the possibility that the covenants are ancillary to its employment relationship with Smith. No doubt A will claim a protectable interest in its confidential information. Here, as to confidentiality, the court’s threshold inquiry would be does Smith in fact possesses “confidential” information, and whether A made adequate efforts to protect what it claims is confidential information. For example, although A’s employees might have access to this alleged confidential information, on A’s acquisition of B was Smith the only person required to sign an agreement with restrictive covenants and confidentiality obligations?

Another related inquiry would be to scrutinize A’s employee handbook to see if it includes a confidentiality provision that would bind other employees and not just Smith, or whether the employee handbook contains any description of the information A alleges is confidential. Similarly, were A’s suppliers required to keep confidential the details of their business dealings with A?

The foregoing is by no means an inclusive analysis of how to distinguish between restrictive covenants ancillary to the sale of a business or an employment agreement, but these are the kinds of scenarios and inquiries that arise on a regular basis in this kinds of disputes.

The attorneys at Lubin Austermuehle have over thirty years of experience defending and prosecuting non-compete, trade secret and restrictive covenant lawsuits. We are committed to fighting for our clients' rights in the courtroom and at the negotiating table. Conveniently located in Chicago and Elmhurst, Illinois, we have successfully litigated non-compete and trade secret and covenant not to compete cases for clients all over the Chicago area. To schedule a consultation with one of our skilled attorneys, you can contact us online or give us a call on our toll-free number at (833) 306-4933 or locally at (630) 333-0333.

Client Reviews
★★★★★
I was referred to Peter Lubin from someone in the car business to handle a law suit. From the moment I made the appointment Peter and his staff were outstanding. This wasn't an easy case, most lawyers had turned me down. However, Peter took the time to meet with me and review everything. He took on the case, and constantly communicated with me about updates and case information. We beat this non-compete agreement case in record time. I would use him again and recommend him to my closest family and friends. 5 stars is not enough to thank him for his service. Sebastian R.
★★★★★
I worked on two occasions with Peter Lubin and his staff. They took their time with me and discussed each and every item in detail. The group makes you feel like you are part of the family and not just another hourly charge. I recommend Peter to anyone who asks me for a referral. If you are looking for a top notch attorney at a reasonable rate, look no further than Lubin Austermuehle. Kurt A.
★★★★★
Excellent law firm. My case was a complicated arbitration dispute from another state. Was handled with utmost professionalism and decency. Mr. Peter Lubin was able to successfully resolve the case on my behalf and got me a very favorable settlement. Would recommend to anyone looking for a serious law firm. Great staff and great lawyers! Albey L.
★★★★★
I have known Peter Lubin for over 30 years. He has represented me on occasion with sound legal advice. He is a shrewd and tough negotiator leading to positive outcomes and averting prolonged legal hassles in court. He comes from a family with a legal pedigree and deep roots in Chicago's top legal community. You want him on your case. You need him on your opponents case. He won't stop fighting until he wins. Christopher G.