Welcome to the AMM Law Blog, a tool to help you keep up to date on current legal developments over the broad spectrum of our practice areas. We welcome your comments and suggestions to create a dynamic forum that will be of interest to readers and participants.
By William T. MacMinn, Esquire Reprinted with permission from August 13, 2013 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. (c)
2013 ALM Media Properties. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.
But He Asked Me First!
Is that a good defense to an alleged breach of a non-solicitation agreement? In a recent decision a Pennsylvania trial court said that it was.
In Marino, Robinson & Associates, Inc. v. Robinson, 2013 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec LEXIS 18 (Jan 2013) Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas entered summary judgment dismissing the case against Defendant who allegedly violated a non-solicitation clause. Plaintiff acquired Defendant’s accounting practice. The contract signed by the parties included clauses prohibiting Defendant from competing with the Plaintiff or soliciting any of her former clients. The non-compete was not implicated in the case because, while the Defendant provided competing accounting services, she did so outside of the geographic limits imposed by the covenant. However, she provided those services to several of her former clients, each of whom unilaterally approached her and asked her to continue on as their accountant. Plaintiff alleged that by providing services to these former clients, the Defendant violated the non-solicitation clause of the contract which prohibited Defendant from “Solicit(ing) in any manner any past clients … for a period of ten (10) years from closing”. The Court, following cases decided in other states, agreed with the Defendant that she was not required to turn away former clients who, unsolicited, approached her to request that she provide services. The Court held that solicitation required conduct on the part of the Defendant designed to awaken or incite the desired action in the former client. Where, as in this case, the former client approached the Defendant unilaterally, the Defendant did not violate the non-solicitation clause.
A similar result obtained in Meyer-Chatfield v. Century Bus. Servicing, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 2d 514, 517-518 (E.D. Pa. 2010) where the Court decided that the meaning of the word “solicit” was not ambiguous and applied the parole evidence rule to bar evidence regarding the meaning of the term. In Meyer-Chatfield, Plaintiff’s Vice-President of Sales and Marketing left his employment with Plaintiff and accepted a similar position with Defendant. An agreement, which included non-solicitation provisions, was negotiated between the parties. Shortly thereafter the parties engaged in negotiations for the acquisition of Plaintiff by Defendant. Those negotiations failed. Subsequently (and after he was terminated by Plaintiff) one of Plaintiff’s sales persons accepted employment with Defendant and took with him other employees (who were part of his sales team) with the result that several significant customers of the Plaintiff eventually began doing business with Defendant. Plaintiff brought suit alleging violation of the non-solicit provisions in the solicitation of both the employees and the customers.
The language at issue prohibited the direct or indirect “…solicit(ation) of any of Plaintiff's employees, agents, representatives, strategic partnerships, [or] affiliations.” The contract did not define the word “solicit.” The Court looked to the common meaning of the term, citing the Black's Law Dictionary definition:
"To appeal for something; to apply to for obtaining something; to ask earnestly; to ask for the purpose of receiving; to endeavor to obtain by asking or pleading; to entreat, implore, or importune; to make petition to; to plead for; to try to obtain; and though the word implies a serious request, it requires no particular degree of importunity, entreaty, imploration, or supplication. To awake or incite to action by acts or conduct intended to and calculated to incite the act of giving. The term implies personal petition and importunity addressed to a particular individual to do some particular thing."
The Court also cited the Webster’s definition of the word: “to entreat, importune . . . to endeavor to obtain by asking or pleading . . . to urge.”
The issue before the Court was whether the word “solicit” was ambiguous permitting parole evidence of its meaning. In holding that it was not, the Court reviewed Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co., Inc. 216 Ga. App. 495, 455 S.E.2d 601 (Ga. App. 1995), in which the Court held that an agreement “not to solicit, either directly or indirectly, any current or past customers” requires more than “[m]erely accepting business [to] constitute a solicitation of that business.” A party is not required to turn away uninvited contacts of former customers. The Court also cited Maintenance Co. v. West, 39 Cal. 2d 198, 246 P.2d 11 (Cal. 1952) in which it was held that neither the act of informing former customers of one’s change of employment, nor the discussion of business upon the invitation of the former customer constitutes solicitation. Finding no ambiguity, the Court prohibited testimony regarding the parties’ understanding of the term.
It seems clear that the Court will apply the ordinary meaning of the word “solicit” which has been repeatedly found to require some overt act of entreaty on the part of the former employee designed to induce the former customer to action. Responding to an uninvited inquiry from a former customer, even where that inquiry is for the purpose of discussing business, and where that inquiry ultimately results in doing business with that former customer, will not be sufficient to support a finding of a breach of a non-solicitation agreement. Of course, doing business with a former customer may well violate the provisions of a non-compete clause and, in such cases, the Courts have not been reluctant to enforce such provisions. Although research has found no cases directly on point, the reasoning of the cases suggests that advertisements or social media posts informing the general public or one’s social media circle of new employment circumstances would also not constitute the type of targeted action required to support a finding that a non-solicitation agreement has been breached.
Those of us routinely asked to draft or review letters of intent (LOI), memorandum of understanding (MOU) and initial term sheets have a new challenge. The use of conventional text clearly stating “this is non-binding” to be sure a preliminary document memorializing negotiations does not give rise to the risk of unintended enforcement apparently is no longer sufficient. As a result of the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in SIGA Technologies v. PharmAthene, Inc., No 314, 2012 2013 Del. LEXIS 265, 1-2 (Del. May 24, 2013), it is now suggested that counsel negotiating LOIs, MOUs and even term sheets designated as final include a specific negation of good faith. Text specifically stating the parties agree that neither party shall have a duty to negotiate in good faith is now considered appropriate. Getting both sides to agree to include such a forbidding sentence, however, is a significant challenge.
In SIGA Technologies, the court held that expectation or “benefit of the bargain” damages (and not just out of pocket, reliance damages) were appropriate where (1) the parties had a term sheet; (2) the parties expressly agreed to negotiate in good faith in a final transaction in accordance with those terms; and (3) but for the breaching party’s bad faith in trying to improve the terms, the parties would have consummated a definitive agreement with the terms set forth in the term sheet.
The SIGA Technologies decision might have been appropriate in light of the specific facts before the court but it leaves transactional lawyers at a loss. Business lawyers have been advising clients since the beginning of time that there is, and should be, a great difference between incomplete and preliminary letters, drafts and other communications clearly understood as non-binding (with the exception of specifically identified provisions, such as those relating to confidentiality and exclusivity) and final, mutually executed contracts with an integration clause. The former should have no legal effect other than as a basis to start the hard drafting process for definitive agreements. LOIs, MOUs and term sheets referring to the parties’ intent to finalize binding documents later are to be used as support for financing efforts and strategic planning and not evidence of a final oral or implied agreement between the parties. Exceptions to this rule were, until recently, very narrowly applied and usually only if the parties made an effort to carve out the intended exceptions with clear language (non-disclosure, exclusivity or no-shop provisions). Efforts by counsel for either party to impose a written duty of good faith and fair dealing on the other party are normally met with resistance with the better practice perceived to be silence on this point and text that allows either party to halt negotiations at any time for any reason as long as there is no breach of the binding confidentiality and/or exclusivity provisions. Termination fees are sometimes added to encourage good faith negotiations and cover out of pocket costs incurred as a cost of freedom to abandon those negotiations.
To avoid imposition of a SIGA Technologies penalty, many corporate advisors are now insisting the only safe course is to explicitly refute the presence of good faith. And yet, most clients do not want to suggest that they would ever negotiate in bad faith. Worse, most clients do not want to agree to allow the other party to the proposed transaction to abandon all pretenses of good faith and fair dealing. Who wants to go to the dance with a partner who asks for permission to humiliate you while there and tells you of his or her plan to possibly leave you without a ride home?
Bad faith in the midst of negotiations has historically been perceived as bad form but not an exception to the “non-binding” rule and certainly not the basis for expectation (lost profits) damages. To make this area even more challenging, a judicial determination of one company’s bad faith (e.g., trying to improve terms if the circumstances have become more favorable for the company) can easily be deemed by the shareholders/members of the same company to be the exercise of management’s fiduciary duty to maximize equity holders’ return. Failure to push for the best possible terms in the face of a non-binding term sheet could be found by another court to be a breach of that duty.
Whether bad faith should support an exception to the “non-binding” rule as a matter of law is an interesting question but the philosophy of law is rarely a topic businessmen and women wish to explore. Any number of things can make a deal that seemed attractive at a given point unacceptable some time later. Negotiations with respect to terms not included in the preliminary documents can be filled with real dispute; due diligence may reveal greater risks than anticipated; the industry-wide market may shift; or business may suddenly improve supporting more favorable terms for one party and less favorable terms for the other. Where the risk of the business enterprise does not begin to shift until after the execution of a definitive document, why should either party get the benefit of a preliminary bargain when the facts and circumstances supporting the transaction have changed?
While no one should be conducting negotiations in bad faith, the imposition of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in preliminary “non-binding” documents unless the parties specifically negate that obligation seems problematic. In contrast, once agreements are fully negotiated and signed, the covenant to act in good faith and engage in fair dealings is appropriate between business partners of all kinds. As found in other Delaware decisions, even where the contracting parties appear to have agreed to limit the scope of their common law and statutory fiduciary duties in a final document, good faith and fair dealing have an important role that should be implied and enforced by the courts. But, only after a final document is signed and sealed, however, should we be insisting a party trying to maximize their position “Did a bad, bad thing.”
From time to time, a client asks about when and why a corporate seal is necessary. Even some attorneys (particularly from out of state) question during contract negotiations whether the phrase “executed under seal” should be removed from a contract as an archaic concept. Historically, seals were affixed to a document as a formality to attest to the parties’ intention to be legally bound by the promises contained in the document. In several states, however, the execution of an agreement under seal continues to have specific legal significance that is not always understood or intended by the parties.
As a general rule, the Pennsylvania Judicial Code provides that the statute of limitations for actions based on a contract is four years. For instruments that are executed under seal, however, the statute of limitations is twenty years. The guarantor of a commercial loan recently learned the hard way that his guaranty was subject to the extended statute of limitations. In Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett, the lender confessed judgment under Mr. Izett’s guaranty nearly five years after the loan went into default. Mr. Izett argued that the action was precluded because it was filed after the four-year limitation period. While acknowledging that the document was executed “under seal”, Mr. Izett maintained that the twenty-year limitation period did not apply because the guaranty agreement was not an “instrument”, which he defined as instruments under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Article 3 defines “instrument” as a “negotiable instrument”, namely “an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money.” Because his guaranty related to a line of credit (not a loan for a fixed sum) and was conditional upon the default of the borrower under the note, he reasoned that it did not meet this definition of “instrument.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. It held that the term “instrument”, as used in the Judicial Code, should be interpreted using its ordinary meaning: a written document that defines the rights and obligations of the parties, such as a contract, will, promissory note, etc. Using this broader definition, the guaranty in question clearly qualifies as an instrument. Since the instrument was executed under seal, the twenty-year statute of limitations applied and the action was allowed to go forward.
It should be noted that the Judicial Code section providing for the twenty-year statute of limitations is due to expire on June 27, 2018. Of course, the sunset date for this provision has been extended in the past, so only time will tell whether the execution of contracts and other writings “under seal” will continue to have special legal significance in Pennsylvania.
Four years ago, the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA) went into effect, forcing home improvement contractors to register with the Commonwealth and to comply with various contracting requirements (for more information, see our Client Alerts on the subject https://www.ammlaw.com/general/articles.html). We have found that unfortunately many contractors remain unaware of this law. Failure to comply with HICPA could result in civil and criminal penalties. But does non-compliance also mean that a contractor is prevented from receiving payment from its customer for completed work? Not necessarily, held the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which recently gave hope to contractors when it concluded that a contractor who does not comply with HICPA may nevertheless recover the value of its services from the customer.
In Shafer Electric & Construction v. Mantia, an out-of-state contractor entered into a written contract with a Pennsylvania homeowner (who also happened to be a contractor) to build an addition to the homeowner’s garage and provided services valued at over $37,000. The contractor did not register with the Commonwealth under HICPA. After the homeowner failed to pay the amount due, the contractor sued to recover its fees. The homeowner asserted that the complaint was legally insufficient because the underlying contract was not enforceable under HICPA. The contractor countered that even if the contract were unenforceable, the contractor should be able to recover its fees under the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit, a theory which allows a party to recover the reasonable value of its services so as to avoid unjust enrichment of the other party. Unfortunately, although HICPA preserves a contractor’s right to recover its fees under a quantum meruit theory, the language of the statute appears to require compliance with HICPA as a prerequisite to recovery. The lower court, strictly interpreting the statute’s plain language, ruled in favor of the homeowner. The Superior Court reversed, holding that the plain language of the statute impermissibly limits the purpose of the provision allowing recovery under quantum meruit. It reasoned that to require the contractor to comply with HICPA before recovering under a quantum meruit theory made no sense because a compliant contractor can recover its fees under a breach of contract theory and does not need an equitable remedy such as quantum meruit.
While Shafer Electric provides reassurance for home improvement contractors doing work in Pennsylvania, the prudent contractor will not rely on it to ensure collection of its fees. Because of the hefty fines and possible criminal penalties that may be imposed for violations, we strongly encourage contractors to register and comply with the other requirements set forth in HICPA.
Employers frequently want to attract new, super-talented management to an existing Company, or potentially worse, have already promised to give one or more trusted and loyal current employees equity as part of their compensation package as soon as the time is right. Unfortunately, this is easier said than safely done.
Clearly, equity can be a powerful, seemingly low-cost form of compensation and motivation. Having your most valued employees vested in something beyond their pay check certainly seems like a fine idea. If the Company does well, the employee shares in that growth in the form of annual distributions or a buy-out upon death, disability, retirement or other termination of employment. So, what do I have against such an idea?
By Patricia C. Collins, Esquire Reprinted with permission from June 14, 2013 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. (c)
2013 ALM Media Properties. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.
It is a reality of litigation that the facts of a case can change in significant ways between the filing of the complaint and trial, but litigants do not always amend pleadings to address these changes. A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit offers incentive to amend in those situations. In West Run Student Housing Associates, LLC v. Huntington National Bank, 7 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2013), the Third Circuit held that averments in a complaint that is later amended do not amount to judicial admissions.
The procedural posture of the West Run case is not unique. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, a breach of contract. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant bank breached its agreement to provide financing for a housing project. The contract required the bank to provide the financing if plaintiff sold the requisite number of housing units. The original complaint included averments regarding the number of units sold, and those numbers were not sufficient to trigger the financing requirement. Defendant moved to dismiss the original complaint, and plaintiff, not unexpectedly, amended. The amended complaint did not contain averments regarding the number of housing units sold.
Predictably, the defendant again moved to dismiss, alleging that the averments contained in the original complaint were judicial admissions, that is, admissions that cannot later be contradicted by a party, which barred the breach of contract claim. The district court agreed and dismissed the claim.
The Third Circuit disagreed. The Court found that an amended pleading supersedes an original pleading, and parties are free to correct inaccuracies in pleadings by amendment. The Court noted that the original pleading is of no effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to or adopts the original pleading. In this way, the amended pleading results in “withdrawal by amendment” of the judicial admission.