|
|
|
|
|
|
by surfacing_vol
985 days ago
|
|
|
Right, I thought that got buried a bit in the article. It doesn't matter if the non-compete is paid or not or if it's 18 days or 18 months long. It shouldn't be enforceable. The exceptions I'm aware of are: * Voleon could claim that Delaware law applies. They'd have a tough case since they have literally no presence in the state - they're just a Delaware LP (like most hedge fund management companies). But, as the article noted, this works only if the employee had an attorney review the agreement. And even if that did happen, recent cases in Delaware suggest that Delaware might still rule that California law applies: https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/230331-delaware-case... * If Voleon pays its employees through a K-1, basically giving them shadow equity, then you could argue that the employees are LLC members or limited partners and that the non-compete is enforceable. But Voleon doesn't do that. * Really, Voleon seems to be putting most of its weight on the (totally bogus) argument that the non-compete is voluntary. Telling that the spokesperson wouldn't say how many employees, particularly at higher comp levels, actually chose not to sign. |
|
|