Nvm just saw ekayes post haha.
The Temporal Length of the Non-Competition Restriction
The sale of a business will typically involve a request from the purchaser for a time period of between three to five years, during which the prohibited activity may not be conducted by a seller. However, it is possible in certain cases to have no pure non-compete at all—subject normally to compliance with non-solicitation covenants and confidentiality restrictions discussed below. Anything more than five years would be highly unusual (and difficult to enforce)—provided that, as will be discussed, a confidentiality restriction could theoretically be unlimited in time. A nuance to the term of a non-compete is the consequence of a violation and whether the term is “tolled” or extended during the period of such a breach, thereby increasing the length of the covenant. In the interest of certainty, sellers should resist such a remedy and push for a fixed period of the covenant while permitting the buyer to resort to attempting to prove actual money damages as its remedy for a breach in lieu of specific performance (which would extend the restrictive period by the period during which there was a breach).
- See more at: http://www.srr.com/article/non-competition-covenants-seller-considerations-and-approaches#sthash.KcwLTlYB.dpuf
My goodness, you guys take wild guesses on who gives a fuck issues and then get down to miniscule details and argue about your guesses...
If I was a Fertitta I'd throw some vagina your way...
? Lol
gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -Shiloh -Pura Vida -I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
just because he signed a contract doesnt make it enforceable
You didn't even read his post, before responding.
Employment law =/= Acquisition law
dude...how many times do i have to repeat myself...the policy against noncompetes apply to employment law and acquisition law...do they apply equally?no because there are countervailing policies...but if you think most jurisdictions will uphold an indefinite ban on competition in an M&A context you are fucking retarded....please stop talking if you dont understand anything about the law
Repeat it as many times as you want, it still won't be true. there may be some lonely state where it is, but it certainly isn't the norm.
In CA as an example, employee non-competes, are illegal, M&A non-competes are legal. We could go state to state, and again and again, we'll find you're wrong.
lol...lets make a bet on whether CA courts have determined that non-competes in the context of M&A cannot have infinite duration
how much do you want to bet?
The discussion was around 5 years.
Either way, you just moved the goal post. Your claim was that M&A non-competes are the same as employee non-competes. You are definitely wrong about that.
Pura Vida -gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -Shiloh -Pura Vida -I know Goku is a lawyer but I agree with Pure Vida.gokudamus -Pura Vida -gokudamus -e. kaye -
I am sure that there is a non-compete. No less than 2 years, more likely 5, although lifetime ban would not surprise me considering the amount of money invovled.
i doubt a lifetime ban would be legal...i dont even think a 5 year ban is legal in most jurisdictions
OF course it is, they sold a business, they weren't employees.
so what. there is a general policy that most courts adhere to against prohibiting people from working. this is applicable in the employee context and the M&A context.
You are incorrect. They are dissimilar, and not governed by the same laws at all. One is a matter of employment law, one isn't.
The owner of my company is the smartest person I or anyone I know has ever met and so baller rich it's unreal. Hundreds of millions type rich. He's always 10 moves ahead of everyone or every business he's working with or government entities he's dealing with.
About 15 years back he sold a company and his actual take was over 200 million at that time. He had a 10 year non compete. When 10th year was up, he was already up and running because that whole time he was getting everything in place while running the new business he started that I worked for.
That's a lot of bullshit to say if anyone can get out of anything in anyway, he could have lol.
just because he signed a contract doesnt make it enforceable
You didn't even read his post, before responding.
Employment law =/= Acquisition law
dude...how many times do i have to repeat myself...the policy against noncompetes apply to employment law and acquisition law...do they apply equally?no because there are countervailing policies...but if you think most jurisdictions will uphold an indefinite ban on competition in an M&A context you are fucking retarded....please stop talking if you dont understand anything about the law
Repeat it as many times as you want, it still won't be true. there may be some lonely state where it is, but it certainly isn't the norm.
In CA as an example, employee non-competes, are illegal, M&A non-competes are legal. We could go state to state, and again and again, we'll find you're wrong.
lol...lets make a bet on whether CA courts have determined that non-competes in the context of M&A cannot have infinite duration
how much do you want to bet?
The discussion was around 5 years.
Either way, you just moved the goal post. Your claim was that M&A non-competes are the same as employee non-competes. You are definitely wrong about that.
uhhh noo...nowhwere did i state that..i said the same POLICY that courts dislike non-competes is true in both areas of the law...go read some caselaw and you will see this mentioned over and over again
"dude...how many times do i have to repeat myself...the policy against noncompetes apply to employment law and acquisition law...do they apply equally?no because there are countervailing policies...but if you think most jurisdictions will uphold an indefinite ban on competition in an M&A context you are fucking retarded....please stop talking if you dont understand anything about the law"
"Repeat it as many times as you want, it still won't be true. there may be some lonely state where it is, but it certainly isn't the norm.
In CA as an example, employee non-competes, are illegal, M&A non-competes are legal. We could go state to state, and again and again, we'll find you're wrong.
"
whos moving goalposts nigga?
JLTECH - I was wondering If the fertitas bros are aloud to get into another promotion like bellator , one fc , titan or any that r out there.
Or can they start there own from scratch.
If they did sign something I wonder for how long they have to stay clear of the fight game.
The Fertitta's still own a passive minority interest, Forbes estimates that each brother owns 8% of the UFC.