In unanimously overturning Arthur Andersen’s criminal conviction for its destruction of documents shortly before the collapse of Enron, the U.S. Supreme Court has also confirmed that document retention policies – even those created in part to keep information from getting into the hands of others (including government) – are common in business and that it is not wrongful for a manager to instruct employees to comply with a valid retention policy.

Upholding earlier California Court of Appeal decisions and disagreeing with the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court has ruled in “Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP”, ___ Cal. 4th ___ , 2008 Cal. LEXIS 9618 (Cal. Aug. 7, 2008) (No. S147190), that non-competition agreements in California are invalid under California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 (“Section 16600”), even if narrowly drawn, unless they fall within an express statutory exception.

On August 7, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued a decision with two important effects on employee contracts. First, the Court rejected a theory that non-solicitation clauses might be acceptable under California law if narrow enough to allow continuation of the employee's profession.

In a much-anticipated ruling, on May 31, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the criminal conviction of Enron Corporation’s auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, for destroying documents pursuant to its document-retention policy as Enron’s financial difficulties became public in 2001.

In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court has confirmed that restrictive agreements that limit an employee's ability to engage in a lawful profession are unenforceable in California unless given in connection with a sale or dissolution of a corporation, a partnership or a limited liability corporation.

The California Supreme Court recently put the final nail in the coffin of employee non-competition agreements. In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, the Court confirmed that California public policy prohibits such agreements, and rejected a "narrow restraint" exception adopted by California federal courts.

In many states, restraints on the practice of a trade or business (i.e., noncompetition agreements) are valid if reasonable and geographically limited.

As we previously reported, California recently enacted AB 1076, which reinforces the state's broad statutory ban on noncompete agreements.

Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act) provides for a stay of litigation in any action that is "referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing." 9 U.S.C. § 3.

California has passed two new items of legislation, Senate Bill 699 and Assembly Bill 1076, which will further regulate and restrict the enforcement of employment non-compete agreements in California, and expand the scope of remedies for those affected by them.

On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of Arthur Andersen LLP for obstructing an official proceeding by ordering the destruction of documents.

Overruling prior precedent, the Fifth Circuit holds that state law, rather than federal common law, controls who may be bound by an arbitration clause.

In April of 2010, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to review an appellate court decision that will require the Court to answer the following question: Can money serve as consideration for a non-compete?

On August 7, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in “Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP”, unanimously holding that Business & Professions Code section 16600 invalidated a provision in Edwards’s employment agreement that restricted him from serving customers and competing with Arthur Andersen following the termination of his employment.

The defendant's conduct is more colorfully described in Justice Thomas's dissent than in Justice Breyer's majority opinion.

Last year, California enacted two laws that severely restrict noncompete agreements in the state. First, Senate Bill 699, now codified as Section 16600.5 of the Business & Professions Code...

On January 7, 2005, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases of interest to the business community. Amicus briefs in support of petitioners will be due on Thursday, February 24, 2005, and amicus briefs in support of respondents will be due on Thursday, March 31, 2005