<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Recent Articles tagged blue-pencil from LexMonitor</title>
    <link>http://www.lexmonitor.com/tags/5703383-blue-pencil</link>
    <pubDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 00:57:20 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>20 Most Recent Articles tagged blue-pencil from LexMonitor</description>
    <item>
      <title>Georgians Vote to Allow Competitive Covenants</title>
      <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/FranchiseLawUpdate/~3/pqGKPFTCYlA/</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;While what some commentators&amp;nbsp;have called a &amp;quot;wave&amp;quot; washed over the national political scene on November 2nd, setting the stage for an interesting &amp;quot;lame duck&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; Congressional session and&amp;nbsp;major changes in Washington come January 2011, it wasn't only national politics that were impacted by the recent election.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You probably have heard that Republican governors and legislators now control the levers of government from the Upper Midwest to the Atlantic Coast.&amp;nbsp; But big things were afoot&amp;nbsp;in the Deep South as well.&amp;nbsp; On November 2, 2010, the voters in the State of Georgia voted to amend their Consttitution so as to generally allow the enforcement of non-compete or non-competition&amp;nbsp;agreements.&amp;nbsp; The amendment had very broad support, as Georgia's voters supported by a better than 2 to 1 margin.&amp;nbsp; The vote represents a major victory for business interests and the International Franchise Association, which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbeMfeemwlc&amp;amp;feature=player_embedded&quot;&gt;strongly supported the amendment&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Previous to the vote on November 2nd, Georgia was one of a handful of states along with California and Louisiana,&amp;nbsp;among others,&amp;nbsp;that offered extremely&amp;nbsp;limited competitive&amp;nbsp;protections to an employer or franchisor against the future actions of a departing employee or franchisee.&amp;nbsp; Voters approved&amp;nbsp;changes in Georgia's constitution which, along with new legislation, dramatically enhance those protections and bring Georgia law in line with most of the rest of the nation.&amp;nbsp; Specifically, the changes in the law:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;allow Georgia courts to partially enforce non-compete clauses&amp;nbsp;that previously would have been considered to be overbroad in scope.&amp;nbsp; In order to accomplish this, the law expressly authorizes &amp;quot;blue-penciling&amp;quot;, where a judge is allowed to modify the duration of&amp;nbsp;or territory covered by a non-compete clause;&lt;/li&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;permit the enforcement of non-compete clauses while an employee or franchisee is still contracted to his or her employer or franchisor;&lt;/li&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;create a legal presumption--a very high standard--that post-termination non-compete agreements with a duration of two years or less are reasonable;&lt;/li&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;where appropriate, authorize enforcement of post-termination restrictions that lack an express reference to a geographic area.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Importantly,&amp;nbsp;the changes only apply to non-compete agreements entered into AFTER November 3, 2010.&amp;nbsp; The prospective nature of the changes has implications for both franchisors and franchisees operating in Georgia.&amp;nbsp; Franchisors will need to have their franchisees sign amendments to their franchise agreements that comply with Georgia's new law.&amp;nbsp; Such amendments will need to comply, of course, with disclosure requirements and will likely require that&amp;nbsp;some additional compensation be given to the franchisee--though, admittedly common&amp;nbsp;in&amp;nbsp;other states,&amp;nbsp;that latter part is not clear under the Georgia law.&amp;nbsp; Franchisees will want to carefully&amp;nbsp;scrutinize any proposed amendments to their franchisee agreements.&amp;nbsp; Given that franchisees usually sign long-term agreements, they likely cannot be forced to sign amendments without gaining some new compensation--perhaps a new territory or relief from some other requirement of the franchise agreement.&amp;nbsp; Franchisors and franchisees should have any proposed changes in their agreements reviewed by legal counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FranchiseLawUpdate/~4/pqGKPFTCYlA&quot; height=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;1&quot; /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:40:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/FranchiseLawUpdate/~3/pqGKPFTCYlA/</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Georgians Vote to Allow Competitive Covenants (Updated)</title>
      <link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/FranchiseLawUpdate/~3/SnN1KHYKEoE/</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;While what some commentators&amp;nbsp;have called a &amp;quot;wave&amp;quot; washed over the national political scene on November 2nd, setting the stage for an interesting &amp;quot;lame duck&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; Congressional session and&amp;nbsp;major changes in Washington come January 2011, it wasn't only national politics that were impacted by the recent election.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You probably have heard that Republican governors and legislators now control the levers of government from the Upper Midwest to the Atlantic Coast.&amp;nbsp; But big things were afoot&amp;nbsp;in the Deep South as well.&amp;nbsp; On November 2, 2010, the voters in the State of Georgia voted to amend their Consttitution so as to generally allow the enforcement of non-compete or non-competition&amp;nbsp;agreements.&amp;nbsp; The amendment had very broad support, as Georgia's voters supported by a better than 2 to 1 margin.&amp;nbsp; The vote represents a major victory for business interests and the International Franchise Association, which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbeMfeemwlc&amp;amp;feature=player_embedded&quot;&gt;strongly supported the amendment&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Previous to the vote on November 2nd, Georgia was one of a handful of states along with California and Louisiana,&amp;nbsp;among others,&amp;nbsp;that offered extremely&amp;nbsp;limited competitive&amp;nbsp;protections to an employer or franchisor against the future actions of a departing employee or franchisee.&amp;nbsp; Voters approved&amp;nbsp;changes in Georgia's constitution which, along with new legislation, dramatically enhance those protections and bring Georgia law in line with most of the rest of the nation.&amp;nbsp; Specifically, the changes in the law:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;allow Georgia courts to partially enforce non-compete clauses&amp;nbsp;that previously would have been considered to be overbroad in scope.&amp;nbsp; In order to accomplish this, the law expressly authorizes &amp;quot;blue-penciling&amp;quot;, where a judge is allowed to modify the duration of&amp;nbsp;or territory covered by a non-compete clause;&lt;/li&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;permit the enforcement of non-compete clauses while an employee or franchisee is still contracted to his or her employer or franchisor;&lt;/li&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;create a legal presumption--a very high standard--that post-termination non-compete agreements with a duration of two years or less are reasonable;&lt;/li&gt;
    &lt;li&gt;where appropriate, authorize enforcement of post-termination restrictions that lack an express reference to a geographic area.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Importantly,&amp;nbsp;the changes only apply to non-compete agreements entered into AFTER November 3, 2010.&amp;nbsp; The prospective nature of the changes has implications for both franchisors and franchisees operating in Georgia.&amp;nbsp; Franchisors will need to have their franchisees sign amendments to their franchise agreements that comply with Georgia's new law.&amp;nbsp; Such amendments will need to comply, of course, with disclosure requirements and will likely require that&amp;nbsp;some additional compensation be given to the franchisee--though, admittedly common&amp;nbsp;in&amp;nbsp;other states,&amp;nbsp;that latter part is not clear under the Georgia law.&amp;nbsp; Franchisees will want to carefully&amp;nbsp;scrutinize any proposed amendments to their franchisee agreements.&amp;nbsp; Given that franchisees usually sign long-term agreements, they likely cannot be forced to sign amendments without gaining some new compensation--perhaps a new territory or relief from some other requirement of the franchise agreement.&amp;nbsp; Franchisors and franchisees should have any proposed changes in their agreements reviewed by legal counsel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;UPDATE:&amp;nbsp; &lt;/strong&gt;Stay tuned.&amp;nbsp; There is a new wrinkle in Georgia's efforts to allow the enforcement of&amp;nbsp;non-compete agreements.&amp;nbsp; The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ajc.com/business/lawmakers-scramble-over-mistake-744833.html&quot;&gt;Atlanta Journal Constitution is reporting &lt;/a&gt;that the state law implementing the new constitutional amendment has an effective date, as noted above, of November 3, 2010.&amp;nbsp; However, the constitutional amendment authorizing the law does not take effect until January 1, 2011.&amp;nbsp; This creates a serious question whether the law is enforceable.&amp;nbsp; Accordingly, no one should enter into any non-compete agreements in Georgia until this discrepancy is resolved.&amp;nbsp; Fox Rothschild will continue to monitor this situation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FranchiseLawUpdate/~4/SnN1KHYKEoE&quot; height=&quot;1&quot; width=&quot;1&quot; /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:40:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/FranchiseLawUpdate/~3/SnN1KHYKEoE/</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
