![]() Unlike Aiken, Boulos and McQuilling were not subject to the PEA restrictions. The definition of "Confidential Information" in the PEA included any information about PaineWebber or any of its clients or employees that Aiken obtained as a result of his employment with that company. In addition to the "Non-Compete Period" restrictions, Aiken also agreed not to copy, use or disclose "Confidential Information" received in the course of his employment at PaineWebber. See, Exhibit A, Personal Employment Agreement, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint. Nonetheless, if Aiken's employment at PaineWebber ended, regardless of the reason, he was subject to the following restrictions for one year, i.e., "the Non-Compete Period:" (1) Aiken would not engage "in any of the duties" he had performed at PaineWebber for any other employer, including himself (2) he would not "induce or attempt to persuade" an employee of PaineWebber to discontinue employment with that firm and (3) for six months following the termination of his employment, Aiken would not solicit "brokerage business" from customers of PaineWebber or provide such business to them. During the four-year term, however, Aiken could only be terminated for cause as set forth in the agreement. At the close of the four-year term, Aiken's employment with PaineWebber would become *439 "at will" and the restrictions of the PEA would no longer apply to him. Aiken's PEA was to run for a term of four years. The PEA contains a choice of law clause stating that New York law will govern the contract. PaineWebber closed its acquisition of Bradford on June 9, 2000.Īmong the terms of the PEA signed by Aiken and the other Bradford members as a part of the buyout were the limitations at issue in this case. On May 22, 2000, Aiken executed his PEA with PaineWebber and in consideration therefor, received consideration which the parties agree was in excess of $700,000.00. ![]() PaineWebber's obligation to complete the transaction was made contingent on the execution of a Personal Employment Agreement (PEA) by 90 percent of a select group of Bradford members which included Aiken. In April 2000, PaineWebber began implementation of its acquisition of Bradford. Bradford & Co.(Bradford), was employed as branch manager of its Asheville, North Carolina, office. 1997) ("the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that all the requirements of Blackwelder favor granting the preliminary injunction").Īiken, formerly a member of the stock brokerage firm of J.C. Based on the factual allegations set forth in the pleadings and the arguments of counsel during the hearing, and bearing in mind that the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove each of the requirements for a preliminary injunction, the Court makes the following findings of fact. Based on these submissions, the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff a temporary restraining order, although in a more limited form than requested. 65 and Defendants responded on the same day. On March 6, 2002, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff's complaint, filed March 5, 2002, seeks injunctive relief against the Defendants Roger H. Based on the preliminary findings and legal conclusion set forth below, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion and enter a preliminary injunction against the Defendants. ![]() After entry of a temporary restraining order, the Court held a hearing on March 12, 2002, on the motion. THIS MATTER came before the Court for a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction pending arbitration. Pat Sadler, Sadler & Hovdesven, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for defendants. Anderson, Long, Parker & Warren, P.A., Asheville, NC, J. Zell, Will Hill Tankersley, Kimberly Till Powell, Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, AL, for plaintiff. McNeely, Poyner & Spruill, Charlotte, NC, Lee H.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |