Non-Compete Advice and Litigation — Big Changes After Sysdyne

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sysdyne v. Xigent has been called a “game changer” in the non-compete arena. Join Marty Chester of Faegre Baker Daniels and a panel of other seasoned non-compete lawyers for a discussion of the changes.

The rule enunciated — that the justification defense to tortious interference with contract may encompass “reasonable reliance” on advice of counsel, even if the advice was wrong — will surely change the way employers address and litigate non-compete agreements and disputes. Many questions remain about the role of attorneys and how a new employer’s actions will be interpreted going forward.

Key questions to be discussed include:

• Can employers hire employees in violation of non-compete agreements and effectively inoculate themselves from tortious interference claims?
• What is “reasonable reliance” on advice of counsel?
• How much is needed to prove “honest reliance on advice of counsel after reasonable inquiry"?
• Does an employer asserting this defense have to waive the attorney client privilege, and how far does the waiver go?
• What are the ethical implications for attorneys?