At Sogeti USA LLC v. Scariano, 606 F.Supp.2d 1080 (D.Az 2009), the complaint argued that the defendant was originally employed by the applicant`s predecessor with whom he signed an employment contract with a contract with a contract not to compete. There was no transfer provision in the agreement. The complaint also argued that the defendant became an employee of the applicant after the plaintiff acquired the defendant`s employer, probably through an acquisition of assets. Finally, the defendant was later terminated in the complaint and began working for a competitor. The defendant decided to dismiss on the grounds that the applicant was not in a position to argue to enforce the provision of competition law in law because it had not participated in the labour agreement and that the assignment of the non-competition clause to the applicant was invalid. The court rejected the application for rejection and found that “Arizona`s law is most consistent with the jurisdictions that allow successor companies to impose restrictive agreements, even if the contract remains silent with respect to the transfer capacity and the employee has not given consent. . . . Arizona courts treat restrictive agreements in employment contracts as assets that can be imposed by successor companies, not as highly personalized agreements between the worker and the employer.
Id. to 1085. If the acquisition is a share purchase and the acquired business (we call it Company B) has its own existence, the non-compete clause is not affected. Company B will remain ready to enforce the agreement. However, the answer is less clear when Company B is merged into Company A or where the acquisition is in the form of a wealth acquisition. Under Pennsylvania law, non-compete agreements in employment contracts are not transferred to successive employers unless there is an explicit provision (1) of assignment in the agreement or (2) proof that the worker consented to the assignment. In All-Pak, Inc. v. Johnston, 694 A.2d 347, 351-52 (Pa. That`s great. 1997), the court stated: In Symphony Diagnostic Services No. 1, Inc.
v. Greenbaum, 2016 WL 3615700 (July 8, 6, 2016), after the plaintiff acquired the property from the defendant`s employer, the two defendants, x-ray technicians, went to work for a competitor of the plaintiff. Both parties had signed competition and confidentiality agreements with the applicant`s predecessor. The agreements did not contain any transfer provisions. The District Court rendered a summary judgment in favour of the defendant on the ground that, without the defendant`s consent, its non-competition and confidentiality agreements would not be attributed to the applicant.