Ogletree Deakins: Change in Compensation Voids Massachusetts Non-compete Agreement | Practical Law

Ogletree Deakins: Change in Compensation Voids Massachusetts Non-compete Agreement | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the Massachusetts Superior Court decision in Grace Hunt IT Solutions, LLC v. SIS Software holding that a change in compensation is a material change requiring the execution of new non-compete agreements. In Grace Hunt IT Solutions, a successor company asked its new employees to sign new restrictive covenants and offered a new bonus structure. The employees refused to sign the restrictive covenants and left for a competitor software company. The court found it "extremely significant" that the successor offered new agreements, signaling that the old agreements were being replaced by a new arrangement. Furthermore, the court found that the change in compensation was a material change that would void the previous non-compete agreement.

Ogletree Deakins: Change in Compensation Voids Massachusetts Non-compete Agreement

Practical Law Legal Update 3-518-5426 (Approx. 2 pages)

Ogletree Deakins: Change in Compensation Voids Massachusetts Non-compete Agreement

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Published on 19 Mar 2012Massachusetts, United States
This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the Massachusetts Superior Court decision in Grace Hunt IT Solutions, LLC v. SIS Software holding that a change in compensation is a material change requiring the execution of new non-compete agreements. In Grace Hunt IT Solutions, a successor company asked its new employees to sign new restrictive covenants and offered a new bonus structure. The employees refused to sign the restrictive covenants and left for a competitor software company. The court found it "extremely significant" that the successor offered new agreements, signaling that the old agreements were being replaced by a new arrangement. Furthermore, the court found that the change in compensation was a material change that would void the previous non-compete agreement.