A contract dispute between Biomedical Research Foundation and Louisiana State University is well on its way toward ripening into a full-fledged legal dispute.
We’ve been discussing the topic of non-compete agreements or covenants not to compete, focusing particularly on the restrictions that apply to such contracts. As we’ve mentioned, there are limitations on geography, length of time, the scope of activities restrained, and on what interests an employer can seek to protect through a non-compete agreement.
In our last post, we began speaking about non-compete agreement law here in Louisiana and some of the restrictions it places on companies. As we noted, non-compete agreements are only valid when they meet certain requirements and can be struck down—or at least altered—by the courts unless they are reasonable with respect to the time and geographical limitations they place upon a former employee.
In the competitive business world, businesses need to be aware of the means at their disposal to protect their interests. This issue could be approached from a number of angles, but we want to speak specifically about protecting a business’ interests from competition from former employees. This includes employees who leave to start their own business and employees who go on to work for a competitor.
With fewer internal constraints on foreign investment and a favorable exchange rate, China has become the fastest-growing source of international purchasers of both residential and commercial real estate in the U.S., according to the National Association of Realtors. Between March 2013 and March 2014 Chinese buyers, bought some $22 billion in U.S. real estate -- up from $12.8 billion in the same period a year before. Even more interesting to sellers, around 76 percent of the time, those purchases were made with cash.
Grooms v. Marquette Transportation Company, LLC, involved an arbitration clause in a seaman's employment contract. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a deckhand. As part of his employment application, Plaintiff was required to be bound by a Dispute Resolution Program which included an arbitration provision. This provision included arbitration of claims for maintenance and cure as well as claims arising under the Jones Act.