Purchaser Beware: Delaware Declines to Implement Sale of Enterprise Non-Compete

Courts and state legislatures proceed to take intention at post-employment non-competes. In a companion weblog, we just lately detailed the Federal Commerce Fee’s proposed rule banning post-employment non-competes. Nonetheless, for years (and even beneath the FTC’s overreaching proposed rule), non-competes within the sale of enterprise context have typically acquired much less scrutiny.

The Delaware Chancery Courtroom threw the deal world a curveball when it just lately declined to implement a sale of enterprise non-compete. In Kodiak Constructing Companions, LLC v Adams, the Delaware Chancery Courtroom dominated {that a} non-compete contained within the events’ sale of enterprise settlement was overbroad. Somewhat than blue-penciling or in any other case modifying the covenant to change or strike the overbroad restriction, the courtroom struck the non-compete as unenforceable in its entirety.

As background, Kodiak operated 4 enterprise traces in 81 areas and 16 states: (i) lumber and constructing supplies which, relying on the situation, could embrace roof trusses; (ii) gypsum, together with drywall and associated provides; (iii) development provides, primarily metal, rebar and structural metal, and (iv) kitchen interiors, equivalent to kitchen home equipment, flooring, cupboards and counter tops. 

Kodiak entered right into a inventory buy settlement to amass Northwest and Mandere Building, Inc., an Idaho company promoting, manufacturing and delivering roof trusses. In reference to the acquisition, Kodiak entered right into a restrictive covenant settlement with sure of Northwest’s stockholders, together with Philip Adams.

The restrictive covenant settlement with Adams was detailed and included limitations on geography and time. It prohibited him for a interval of thirty (30) months post-closing, from proudly owning, managing, working, controlling, or taking part within the possession, administration, operation or management, in any endeavor or exercise or “Enterprise” which was just like or in competitors with the “Enterprise” or any a part of it, anyplace in Idaho or Washington and inside a 100 mile radius of any location outdoors of Idaho and Washington the place Kodiak had offered merchandise or offered companies throughout the 12-months previous to closing. Enterprise was outlined as “manufacturing, advertising and marketing, promoting, distributing, putting in and/or delivering of trusses; roof, flooring and stair parts; framing; siding and different constructing supplies and provides, and offering companies with respect thereto, together with design, engineering, turn-key options, venture administration and commerce coordination companies.”

Adams joined a competing truss enterprise inside three months of closing. Kodiak then filed a lawsuit in opposition to Adams in search of to implement the non-compete. The Delaware Chancery Courtroom dominated the non-compete unenforceable. As is customary beneath Delaware’s quasi “rule of purpose” evaluation, the Courtroom first noticed that restrictive covenants should advance a authentic enterprise curiosity of Kodiak, the celebration in search of enforcement. The Courtroom additional acknowledged that within the context of a sale of a enterprise, Kodiak had a authentic enterprise curiosity to guard the belongings and goodwill it acquired within the sale. Nonetheless, the Courtroom opined that the prohibition in opposition to Adams went past attempting to guard the roof truss enterprise Kodiak acquired from Northwest. As an alternative, the restriction on Adams prolonged to all 4 of Kodiak’s enterprise traces, which exceeded the scope of the transaction. 

Particularly, Vice Chancellor Zurn discovered the non-compete overbroad as a result of it restricted Adams from competing inside 100 miles of all of Kodiak’s areas fairly than the one Northwest location Kodiak acquired and since the expansive definition of “Enterprise” encompassed all of Kodiak’s 4 enterprise traces fairly than simply the truss enterprise through which Adams labored. The Courtroom famous “the customer’s legitimate issues about monetizing its buy don’t help proscribing the vendor from competing in different industries through which the customer additionally occurred to put money into previous to the acquisition.” This language suggests the Courtroom would have positioned much less scrutiny on restrictions tied solely to (i) Northwest’s geographic location; and (ii) Northwest’s truss enterprise.

Simply as notable, the Courtroom refused to blue-pencil or in any other case modify the covenant and strike the overbroad provision. As an alternative, the Courtroom deemed your entire non-compete unenforceable due to the overbroad provision, and opined that in blue penciling overbroad restrictive covenants, courts create a “no-lose” incentive.

It stays to be seen whether or not different Delaware courts undertake the Kodiak rationale and holding, however patrons can be clever to make sure non-competes, even within the sale of enterprise context, are tailor-made to guard the authentic enterprise pursuits acquired within the transaction.

Must Read

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here