surfacing_vol

9 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by surfacing_vol 3y ago

   What the article didn't mention was that in 2014, it was even more egregious. There was a 24 month, unpaid non-compete -- and it was a condition of employment, rather than attached to some "voluntary" profit-sharing program.
2. 2.▲
   by surfacing_vol 3y ago

   Right -- while most agreements will include severability clauses, they may not be enough to save an agreement. Over time, New York, for example, has frowned on "blue-penciling" employment agreements: https://www.kramerl
3. 3.▲
   by surfacing_vol 3y ago

   Right. And trade secret protections are enforceable forever, not just for the 1-2 years that a non-compete might cover. And they almost certainly would not get thrown out even if (large) parts of an employment agreement did; in fact, often
4. 4.▲
   by surfacing_vol 3y ago

   I see your point, though respectfully disagree. Voleon gets some real advantages from being "the only game in town" by being the only remotely large quant fund right next door to Berkeley, and Jon McAuliffe has his pick of good st
5. 5.▲
   by surfacing_vol 3y ago

   Right, I thought that got buried a bit in the article. It doesn't matter if the non-compete is paid or not or if it's 18 days or 18 months long. It shouldn't be enforceable. The exceptions I'm aware of are: * Voleon coul