Showing 6 posts in Injunctive Relief.
Next Level Ventures, LLC v. AVID USA Technologies LLC, C.A. No. 2022-0699-MTZ (Del. Ch. March 16, 2023)
The Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the "DDTPA”), 6 Del. C. § 2531, et seq., prohibits confusing or creating misunderstanding as to "the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services" as well as to the products' “affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another." In this case, the plaintiff asserted violations of the DDTPA in connection with the defendants' allegedly misleading statements. This decision grants the injunction against all defendants but narrows it to fit the specific allegations. More ›
Kodiak Building Partners LLC v. Adams, C.A. No. 2022-0311-MTZ (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022)
Delaware courts review noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements to ensure that they “(1) are reasonable in geographic scope and temporal duration, (2) advance a legitimate economic interest of the party seeking its enforcement, and (3) survive a balancing of the equities.” And Delaware law recognizes that an acquirer has a legitimate economic interest in protecting what it purchases, including the purchased company’s assets goodwill. Here, the plaintiff argued that it not only had a legitimate business interest in protecting the goodwill of the company it purchased, but also had a legitimate business interest in protecting its other businesses, including those that pre-dated the acquisition, and, as a result, could restrict a former employee from participating in industries relating to any of those businesses. The Court of Chancery disagreed, finding that the plaintiff’s legitimate economic interest did not extend to goodwill and competitive spaces acquired in other transactions with other companies in different industries. The Court also found that the scope of the noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants at issue were unreasonable, ruling that the provisions’ geographical scope was unreasonably broad, as they covered areas surrounding the plaintiff’s subsidiaries, rather than only areas related to the acquired company. The Court, therefore, declined to enter a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiff did have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. In reaching this conclusion, the Court held that the employee’s promise not to challenge the reasonableness of his restrictive covenants within the relevant contract could not circumvent the Court’s mandate to review those covenants for reasonableness.
Vama F.Z. Co. v. WS02, Inc., C.A. No. 2020-0141-JRS (Del. Ch. Mar. 29, 2021)
This case illustrates that the Court of Chancery lacks subject matter jurisdiction to issue an injunction pending appeal of another court’s rulings, and where the plaintiff has adequate remedies at law. More ›
Buckeye Partners, L.P. v. GT USA Wilmington, LLC, C.A. No. 2020-0255-JTL (Del. Ch. May 20, 2020)
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate (i) a reasonable probability of success on the merits, (ii) a threat of irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted, and (iii) that the balance of the equities favors the issuance of an injunction. Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Hldgs., Co., 506 A.2d 173, 179 (Del. 1986). More ›
Chancery Finds Tortious Interference By Financial Industry Competitor and Addresses the Requirements for Obtaining Permanent Injunctive Relief
This case illustrates the type of competitive conduct that will qualify as tortious interference with business relationships while demonstrating that permanent injunctive relief is unavailable absent a likelihood of future irreparable harm. More ›Share
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a likelihood of success at trial. In a breach of non-compete action, this burden may not be met when economically unjustified restrictive provisions are “too broad as they would essentially prevent Defendant from operating … anywhere in the United States.” More ›Share