As already mentioned, the Non-Competition Act excludes from its scope agreements whereby an agent will no longer recruit the company`s customers after leaving. One problem that can arise here is that the clients the company wants to protect often have a stronger relationship with the agent than with the brokerage firm. A court is more likely to apply a non-solicitation clause to clients and contacts established during the agents` affiliation with the firm than to those who have already done business with the agent before being associated with the broker. Thus, the legal system seems to say that a non-compete obligation is not always valid, that it will not restrict a person`s right to perform the work for which he or she was trained, and that that person cannot perform that work in a manner that directly harms the entity that paid him money for his or her brokerage firms. The list of persons subject to these restrictive covenants in the context of an acquisition generally includes any person who has benefited financially from a sale. „During your employment and for the two years following the termination of your employment relationship for any reason, you will not own, manage, operate, contract, participate, consult or provide services to any business or legal entity on whose behalf you would be associated with a company or its affiliates at the time of termination Employees are competing. that are located or do business in Alamance, Cabarrus, Catawba, Caswell, Chatham, Davidson, Davie, Durham, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, Harnett, Iredell, Johnston, Lee, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Moore, Orange, Person, Randolph, Rowan, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, Union or Wake counties, all in the State of North Carolina, or in Lancaster or York counties, both in the State of South Carolina. This Agreement does not prevent you from making a passive investment in publicly traded securities until such investment is transferred to you or to a company that controls you, is controlled by you or is under your joint control of 5% or more of the outstanding securities of that company as described above. The employee undertakes to inform the company immediately during the period of employment or any other affiliation with another company or legal person. The Biden administration is trying to end the use of non-compete clauses in employment practice. How will this affect the real estate sector? @Jeshua Patrick Oh, it is indeed a learning experience. At the time of my job, I didn`t know I was going to get into real estate investing.

I will be more careful if I continue. I think I`m good. Thank you. Over the past 30 years of advising the brokerage industry and M&A of brokerage firms, RealTrends has been repeatedly invited to testify about these restrictive agreements – non-compete obligations. In almost all cases, the defendants were broker owners who violated their restrictive agreements by competing with their business buyer, recruitment agents, and employees of their former business, or both. In almost all the cases we remember, judges did not apply the non-compete provisions of the restrictive agreements, but almost always applied the prohibition on seeking restrictions. Such restrictive covenants also exist in many leading brokerage firms for their sales management staff. And again, in the cases we know of, courtrooms have found that while the non-competitive parts of restrictive agreements are generally not respected, the solicitation prohibitions and the non-disclosure parties of the agreements are maintained – in some cases strictly. The minimum requirements for a non-compete clause to be valid and enforceable are as follows: I want to start selling wholesale and invest in real estate, but I am not sure I am violating my professional ban. I currently work as a graphic designer at Berkshire Hathaway Carolinas Realty.

Are real estate investments perceived as competition? This agreement seems to be very broad. Do all modes of real estate investment take competition into account? (Wholesale, Fix and Flip, etc.) HR didn`t really know how to answer my question. Maybe I`m thinking about it? Clause below. The Court of Appeal held that Killian and Tam-Bay Realty did not breach the non-compete obligation because they were not competing with Ross by opening, operating and acting as officers or directors of a brokerage firm in Pinellas County. They were legitimately competing with Ross in Pinellas County from a brokerage firm outside Pinellas County, „thus adhering to the literal meaning of the non-compete agreement.“ Using the same literal reading approach, another Florida Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion in Heiderich v. Florida Equine Veterinary Services, Inc. (2012), as discussed in Part 6: Veterinarians and Vehicles. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court`s decision that the defendants did not have the right to force the claimant to go to arbitration. While the Appellate Body considered that the respondent`s argument that the dispute settlement clause of franchise agreements indicated that Re/Max intended to require all franchisees to resolve disputes by arbitration was valid, it pointed out that another clause in franchise agreements expressly rejected any third-party beneficiary status from one franchisee to another. Because of this ambiguity between the two clauses, the Court rejected the respondent`s position that the plaintiff had clearly agreed to submit this dispute to arbitration. Among the documents accompanying the equity grants was a restrictive covenant agreement („RCA“), which the employee completed electronically. The CAR required the employee to acknowledge that she had access to „confidential information“ the disclosure of which „could seriously disadvantage the company competitively and cause serious harm to Realogy`s business.“ CAR also noted that the employee received valid and valid consideration for the restrictive obligations contained in the agreement, including (a) the right to acquire and own securities and (b) her continued employment with Realogy.

Among the restrictive agreements to which she was bound was a non-compete provision prohibiting the employee from providing services to a commercial or private real estate brokerage firm providing the same or similar services as Martha Turner for one year after the dismissal and within fifteen miles of each branch in which she worked. and that may result in the use or disclosure of confidential information. It appears that the Biden administration`s decision to end non-compete obligations may not have a significant impact on current practices in our industry. However, it could have a big impact if the Biden administration extends its attempted ban to ban poaching. In such a case, we would think that this could encourage buyers of real estate brokerage companies to change their acquisition activities and at least restructure the terms of their purchase contracts. Importantly, despite the consistent use of the term „employee“ throughout the law, the law applies to both employees and independent contractors. In addition, the new law explicitly prohibits the use of non-compete obligations with hourly persons, trainees, students and young people under the age of 18 or persons who have been dismissed without reason. Non-compete obligations signed before the law came into effect on October 1, 2018 are still theoretically enforceable under Massachusetts common law, b Given the public policy statement issued by the new law against these provisions, older agreements are likely to be scrutinized more closely than ever before.

. . .