Benefits Bryan Cave

Benefits BCLP

Legal Updates

Main Content

Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act

August 31, 2011

Categories

Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act

August 31, 2011

Authored by: benefitsbclp

On May 11, 2011, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed House Bill 30 into law, beginning a new era for non-compete, non-disclosure, and non-solicitation agreements under Georgia.  Georgia historically has been an inhospitable forum for employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants against former employees.  Georgia’s new Restrictive Covenant Act (the “Act”) clarifies and strengthens the ability of employers to restrict conduct during and after employment.

Importantly, the Act applies only to Georgia restrictive covenant agreements entered into on or after May 11, 2011.  Employers with operations in Georgia should revisit their restrictive covenant agreements and consider revising their agreements to take advantage of protections of the new law.  Historically, Georgia law has not required new or additional consideration to support a new restrictive covenant agreement signed by a current employee, so employers are in a good position to strengthen their competitive protections, at this time, should they choose to do so.

Perhaps the most significant change of the Act, courts are now expressly authorized to modify or “blue pencil” an overbroad restrictive covenants entered into on or after May 11, 2011.  Accordingly, courts have the discretion, but are not obligated, to strike out or remove language that renders the restrictive covenant unenforceable.  Given the prospective nature of the Act, Georgia common law will still govern agreements entered into prior to the effective date of the Act, which means if any restrictive covenant in such agreements is overbroad it will not be enforced.

Individual PTEs Dodd-Frank Act

Individual PTEs Dodd-Frank Act

August 31, 2011

Authored by: benefitsbclp

Earlier this summer, the DOL issued a “FAQ on Credit Ratings and Individual Prohibited Transaction Exemptions”  concerning how Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) will impact prohibited transaction exemptions (“PTEs”) granted to individual fiduciaries or transactions under Section 408(a) of ERISA.  Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act generally requires federal agencies to review and modify existing regulations that refer to, or require reliance on, credit ratings within one year following the enactment of Dodd-Frank (i.e., by July 21, 2011).   Certain individual PTEs refer to or rely upon credit ratings.

In its FAQ, the DOL confirmed its position that individual PTEs do not qualify as “federal regulations”; accordingly, Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act does not require review and modification of previously granted exemptions. This means that individual PTEs will remain in force with no modifications despite the Section 939A July deadline.

Seventh Circuit Overturns Dismissal of Collusive Trading Action Brought By AnchorBank

August 24, 2011

Categories

Last Friday, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion overturning the lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought against Hofer, an employee of AnchorBank, alleging  that, along with two other employees, Hofer engaged in a collusive trading scheme in violation of Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”).  The two other employees settled with AnchorBank before the lawsuit was filed.

In its second amended complaint, AnchorBank alleged that Hofer and his two co-conspirators coordinated their purchase and sale of units in the AnchorBank Unitized Fund (“Fund”), which was an investment option in the AnchorBank 401(k) plan that held cash and company stock.  The alleged scheme involved the coordination of the sale of Fund units, triggering a payout from the Fund’s cash reserves to the suspected co-conspirators.  Since the trustee was required to maintain a particular cash-to-stock ratio in the Fund, it was then forced to sell AnchorBank stock on the open market to replenish the Fund’s cash reserves.  This heightened trading activity by the alleged co-conspirators caused the volume of AnchorBank stock on the market to be relatively high as compared to normal trading and, given the large volume of AnchorBank stock being sold at or around the same time, AnchorBank’s stock price declined.

The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.