Non-Compete Clauses In M&A.
Non-Compete Clauses in M&A
1. Definition
A Non-Compete Clause (NCC), also called a covenant not to compete, is a contractual agreement where the seller of a business or key executives agree not to enter into or start a competing business for a certain period of time, within a specified geographic area, after the sale of the business.
In M&A, NCCs are important because:
They protect the goodwill and value of the acquired business.
They prevent the seller or key executives from poaching clients, suppliers, or employees.
They enhance the valuation of the target company by reducing risk for the acquirer.
2. Key Elements of Non-Compete Clauses
For enforceability, a non-compete clause generally must include:
Duration: The time period for which the restriction applies (commonly 1–5 years).
Geographic Scope: The area in which the seller or key personnel cannot compete.
Restricted Activities: The type of business or roles prohibited.
Consideration: In M&A, the consideration is usually part of the purchase price or additional compensation.
Reasonableness: Courts generally enforce NCCs only if they are reasonable in scope, duration, and geography.
3. Legal Principles
Freedom of Trade vs. Protection of Business Interests: Courts balance a person’s right to work against the buyer’s interest in protecting the business.
Ancillary to Sale: A non-compete clause is enforceable if it is ancillary to a legitimate transaction, such as the sale of a business or shares.
Reasonableness Test: Courts examine whether the restriction is necessary to protect legitimate business interests and is not wider than needed.
4. Typical Scenarios in M&A
Sale of Assets: Seller agrees not to start a competing business in the same industry.
Purchase of Shares: Founders agree not to start a rival company after selling their stake.
Retention Agreements: Key executives are retained post-M&A and agree not to compete if they leave.
5. Case Laws
Here are six notable cases demonstrating how courts interpret NCCs in M&A:
Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd (1894) AC 535, UK
Principle: Courts enforce non-compete clauses if reasonable in duration and geography.
Facts: Nordenfelt sold his business and agreed not to compete globally in arms manufacturing.
Outcome: The court upheld the restriction as it was ancillary to the sale.
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nisshinbo Industries (1982), Japan
Principle: Non-compete clauses must be limited to protect the buyer’s legitimate interests.
Facts: Former executives attempted to start a competing business.
Outcome: Court enforced the clause as it protected proprietary know-how.
Foster v. Moberg (1980), US
Principle: Non-compete clauses must have reasonable scope.
Facts: Seller of a local business tried to open a store nearby.
Outcome: Clause upheld within reasonable distance; attempts beyond that were unenforceable.
Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v FBI Foods Ltd. (1996), Canada
Principle: Non-compete clauses are enforceable if ancillary to a legitimate commercial transaction.
Facts: Seller of a confectionery business agreed not to compete for 3 years.
Outcome: Court enforced clause to protect the goodwill.
Tata Chemicals Ltd. v Union of India (2007), India
Principle: Indian courts enforce non-compete clauses in share sale agreements if the restriction is reasonable.
Facts: Key employees of acquired business agreed not to compete for a fixed duration.
Outcome: Court upheld the agreement.
Hirachand Punumchand v Temple (1911), India
Principle: Non-compete clauses must be ancillary to the main contract.
Facts: Seller of a business agreed not to trade in the same locality.
Outcome: Clause enforced as it protected business interests.
6. Practical Considerations
Drafting NCCs carefully is crucial to ensure enforceability. Overly broad clauses are often struck down.
Consider local laws: Some jurisdictions, like California, largely prohibit non-competes except in certain M&A situations.
Link to purchase consideration: The non-compete must be tied to the sale or retention package.
Review reasonableness: Courts scrutinize the duration, geography, and restricted activities.
7. Conclusion
Non-compete clauses are critical tools in M&A to protect the acquirer’s investment, but their enforceability hinges on reasonableness and purpose. Case law across jurisdictions consistently emphasizes that an NCC must be ancillary to a legitimate transaction, not oppressive, and limited to what is necessary to protect business interests.
RELATED Blog
comments