Menu

Significant Appellate Decision - Non-Compete Agreements

Appellate & Trial Support   |   Labor & Employment   |   April 18, 2003
Download Download   
Share Share Page

NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS

On April 17, 2003, the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision in Corporate Express Office Products, Inc. v. Phillips, case No. SC01-2741 (Fla. Apr. 17, 2003)(not final until period for rehearing has expired and any motions for rehearing are resolved).  In the case under review, the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled below that non-compete agreements could not be enforced by a successor corporation against former employees, absent a consensual assignment of the noncompete agreement, where the “culture and mode of operation” of the successor corporation was different from that of the previous corporation. 

The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fifth District’s reasoning, and instead ruled:

Reliance on changes in corporate culture and mode of operation as a measure of whether an employer has changed identity and therefore must obtain a consensual assignment of a noncompete agreement would inject unnecessary uncertainty into corporate transactions. Changes in corporate culture occur frequently, often in response to market forces and without a corresponding change in corporate structure. As long as the other prerequisites to the validity of a noncompete agreement are met, neither a 100 percent stock purchase nor a merger affects the enforceability of the agreement.

Op. at 17 (emphasis supplied).

If you have questions about this bulletin, please call Joseph H. Lang, Jr. in the St. Petersburg office at (888) 821-9191.


©2022 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.