September 25, 2015

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?

Services and Industries


Noon - 1:30 p.m. CDT

The Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP website uses cookies to make your browsing experience as useful as possible. In order to have the full site experience, keep cookies enabled on your web browser. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP's cookies information for more details.