In UARCO Inc. v. Lam, 18 F.Supp.2d 1116 (D. Haw. 1998), an employer and his successor brought an action against two former employees of the predecessor and sought an injunction and injunction that prohibited the two former workers from violating their termination agreements with their predecessor. Apparently, the divestiture agreements have remained silent. The General Court dismissed the applicants` application for an injunction on the ground that the agreements prohibiting debauchery are not refundable. Id. at 1122.

Subsequently, however, the court granted the applicants` application for an injunction, as the applicants merged following the court`s decision on the application for an injunction. Therefore, the transaction at issue was a merger and not an asset purchase. “The law and jurisprudence, however, it is clear that after a merger, the company that will succeed it has all the duties and rights of the company that preceded it.” However, the Tribunal also noted that `[a] duty not to compete is not unreasonable, as it is essentially a personal service contract`, and the Tribunal referred to its earlier, unpublished decision rejecting the application for an injunction finding that a successor could not enforce a predecessor`s non-competition clause with his collaborators, because “the obligations not to compete are not unreasonable.” Id. In Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Jenkins, 16 Mass. L. Rept.

486, 2003 WL 21781385 (mass. That`s great. 18. July 2003), a Massachusetts court rejected a successor`s request to provisionally accuse a former employee of his predecessor of a competitor`s work in the security sector, in breach of a non-compete agreement between the worker and his predecessor. The contract did not contain any assignment provisions. The Tribunal found that the relationship between the defendant and his employer was “a relationship of personal trust”, so that the worker`s non-compete contract could not be assigned to Securitas without the worker`s consent. Id. at *5. The court held that, in accordance with his contract, the worker had explicit obligations and benefits vis-à-vis his employer and not his employer`s successor. In addition, according to the Tribunal, the worker accepted the employment restrictions, “with knowledge of [his employer`s] character and personality”, but he may not have accepted the same restrictions with the successor. “Admittedly, [the worker] could not assign his contract with [his employer] without the voice [of the employer] as regional president for New England. .

. .