Puerto Rico Supreme Court: Former Exec Cannot Sue Individual Board Members for Breach of Employment Contract

Posted on by adamsampsonlaw

The National Law Forum

A former employee cannot sue individual members of a corporation’s board of directors for breach of an employment contract and negligence in execution of fiduciary duties, where: 1) the individual board members are not parties to the employment contract; and 2) the employee and his relatives are not shareholders with standing to sue board members for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has held. Randolfo Rivera San Feliz et al v. Junta de Directores de Firstbank Corporate et al., 2015 TSPR 61, 196 DPR ___ (2015).

Plaintiff Randolfo Rivera was a former executive of a banking entity in Puerto Rico. The terms of his employment were established in a contract with the bank. The contract provided that any decision regarding the contract, including termination of employment, had to be approved by at least two-thirds of all the members of the bank’s board of directors…

View original post 457 more words

The Ongoing Debate About Adequate Consideration in Non-Competition and Other Restrictive Covenants

Posted on by adamsampsonlaw

Labor and Employment Legal News - SmithAmundsen

Contributed by Carlos Arévalo

In late June, the appellate court for the first district reiterated that employment lasting less than two years is inadequate consideration to support enforcement of a post-employment restrictive covenant. In McInnis v. OAG Motorcycle Ventures, a motorcycle salesman filed a lawsuit seeking to have his non-competition agreement declared invalid because he resigned 18 months after signing the agreement. The employer counterclaimed seeking an injunction to enforce the restrictive covenant. The salesman won.Featured image

The court came to this conclusion after examining the 2013 first district case, Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc. That case has been criticized because of its emphasis on the duration of employment after the execution of the agreement, as opposed to reviewing the totality of the circumstances under the Illinois Supreme Court standard. The case involved an employee who was laid off when his employer was purchased by another company. The…

View original post 339 more words

Recent Delaware Law and Closely Held Business Disputes

Posted on by adamsampsonlaw

#shareholder #oppression #litigation

Jeshua Lauka's Business and Real Estate Law Blog

I just read in the ABAJournal article that Delaware passed a law favorable to shareholders in litigation.

“A law banning corporate bylaws that impose a hefty price on investors who file unsuccessful shareholder derivative suits has been signed by Delaware’s governor.”

The Delaware legislature apparently recognizes  the challenges that minority shareholders can face in closely held businesses.

In my practice, one fundamental challenge that I have seen is this:

In a closely held company it is very easy for one group of owner[s] to freeze out another owner.

I guess the first question is, “freeze out from what*?”

                         Control – Decision-making

                         Disclosures of Company Business

                         Profits in the Company

                         Employment in the Company.

What should a business owner/operator do to protect himself/herself?

Well, you have two readily apparent choices – address the issue before the business is formed, or address it once the problem arises.

View original post 570 more words

Noncompete Agreements Should Explicitly Limit Geographic Scope and Activities

Posted on by adamsampsonlaw

ColTex Business and Employment Law Blog

In most jurisdictions, including Texas, to be enforceable a noncompete agreement must be reasonable in the scope of its geographic limitation and in the scope of activity restrained. Much litigation has arisen concerning whether specific geographic and/or activity limitations were reasonable under certain circumstances. But what if the noncompete agreement is silent?

A recent 8th Circuit decision, applying Arkansas law, upheld judgment on the pleadings against an employer whose noncompete agreement failed to set forth its geographic scope or the scope of activities proscribed. The noncompete agreement provided:

COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE: The Employee agrees that during the term of this Agreement, and for two (2) years following termination of this Agreement by the Company, with or without cause; or, for a period of two (2) years following a termination of this Agreement by the Employee, the Employee will not directly or indirectly enter into, be employed by or…

View original post 298 more words