Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Editors (5)

image description
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Sara Bussiere

Executive Editor, Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution
image description
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP

Armeen Mistry Shroff

Managing Editor, Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution
image description
Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP

Leslie Ann Berkoff

Contributing Editor, Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution
image description
Lewis Brisbois

Sean M. Brennecke

Contributing Editor, Business Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Filter By Topics: Topic

We're Sorry

No Results Found

We're Sorry

No Results Found

We're Sorry

No Results Found

MONTH-IN-BRIEF (Mar 2023)

Business Litigation

Delaware Court of Chancery Finds Stock Purchase Agreement’s Prohibition of Sellers from Competing “Anywhere in the World” Is Unenforceable

By Jonathan M. Stemerman, Armstrong Teasdale LLP

In recent months, the Delaware Court of Chancery has increasingly viewed restrictive non-competition covenants negatively. Nevertheless, the Court has continued to enforce such non-competition clauses where the provision is related to the sale of a business and not an employment contract. In Intertek Testing Services, NA, Inc. v. Eastman, however, the Court found the purchase agreement’s restriction on a seller’s ability to compete “anywhere in the world” too broad, and the buyer’s complaint to enforce the restriction was dismissed.

Intertek Testing Services purchased a business—Alchemy Investment Holdings, Inc.—cofounded by Jeff Eastman. Eastman was Alchemy’s cofounder and CEO and was also a major stockholder. The Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) prohibited each “Restricted Seller,” such as Eastman, from competing with Alchemy “anywhere in the world” for a period of five years.

Login or Registration Required

You need to be logged in to complete that action.

Register/Login