Posts tagged Premier Dealer Services.
Blogs
2 minute read
Federal district judges in Chicago are now split over whether to follow the Illinois appellate court's landmark non-compete decision, Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., 373 Ill. Dec. 379, 993 N.E. 2d 938 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2013).
Blogs
4 minute read
Judge Ruben Castillo, the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, recently declined to follow a widely publicized Illinois Appellate Court decision in which the Appellate Court held that, absent other consideration, two years of employment is required consideration for a restrictive covenant in Illinois.
Blogs
3 minute read
A recent decision by one district of the Illinois Court of Appeals (Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services) significantly altered long-settled understandings regarding the consideration required for an enforceable restrictive covenant in Illinois. In light of that decision, Illinois employers hoping to enforce restrictive covenants within two years after the signing date should be prepared to distinguish Fifield factually or legally. Employers that are concerned about their ability to do so, or that want to err on the side of caution, should act now to address the implications of Fifield.
Blogs
less than a minute
The Illinois Supreme Court recently announced that it was not going to review an Illinois Appellate Court decision, Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., which held that, absent other consideration, two years of employment is required for a restrictive covenant to be deemed supported by adequate consideration - even where the employee signed the restrictive covenant as a condition to his employment offer - and even where the employee voluntarily resigned.
Blogs
less than a minute
In Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., an Illinois Appellate Court recently held that, absent other consideration, two years of employment is required for a restrictive covenant to be deemed supported by adequate consideration - even where the employee signed the restrictive covenant as a condition to his employment offer - and even where the employee voluntarily resigned.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: FTC Nixes Non-Competes Nationwide—Now What?
- Q&A on the FTC's Final Rule Banning Post-Employment Non-Competes
- Chamber of Commerce and Others Swiftly File Lawsuits Seeking to Enjoin and Vacate the FTC’s Noncompete Rule
- The FTC Finally Pulls the Trigger on a Final Noncompete Rule, with a Few Changes, but Remains Unlikely to Ever Hit Its Target
- Spilling Secrets Podcast: Navigating Physician Non-Compete Litigation