Continued Employment as Consideration in Illinois—A Short Primer
Following the Illinois appellate court decisions in Diederich Insurance Agency, LLC v. Smith, 952 N.E.2d 165, 169 (5th Dist. 2011) and Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Mudron, 887 N.E.2d 437, 441 (3d Dist....
View ArticleWatch Your Assets Part Two: Best Practices for Protecting Confidential...
One of the primary reasons for using a restrictive covenant agreement is to protect a company’s confidential information and trade secrets. By implementing certain behaviors, a company can...
View ArticleWatch Your Assets Part Three: Why and When to Seek Injunctions and Temporary...
In our last two posts, we identified best practices for ensuring that a company’s house is in order, including the use of narrowly tailored restrictive covenant agreements (Part I) and adopting a...
View ArticleWatch Your Assets Series Part Four: Key Injunction Strategies
In this series of blog posts, we have examined the use of injunctive relief in state and federal courts in response to employees who have misappropriated confidential information and trade secrets, who...
View ArticleA Sea Change in the Illinois Restrictive Covenant Agreement Framework
As we previously discussed in our blog post, the “continued employment doctrine,” which is the majority view in Illinois, is that two years of continued employment after an employee enters a...
View ArticleIllinois Supreme Court’s Refusal To Review Restrictive Covenant Decision...
The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent refusal to review the Illinois Appellate Court’s controversial decision in Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., No. 1-12-0327, 2013 IL App (1st) 120327 (Jun....
View ArticleRecent Illinois Federal Court Rulings Cloud Fifield’s Bright-Line Test
Two recent rulings in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division and the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, have further blurred the “bright line” two-year consideration rule...
View Article
