Printer Friendly

Court invalidates restrictive employment covenant.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia ruled that a CPA firm could not enforce an employment termination agreement against former firm members who had left and formed a competing firm. On April 19, 1991, Richard Greenwald, Richard Denzik and Charles Davis left Dougherty, McKinnon & Luby (DML) (formerly Dougherty, McKinnon & Greenwald) to form Greenwald, Denzik & Davis (GDD). A number of DML clients switched to the new firm.

DML subsequently sued GDD to enforce the employment agreement signed by its former members and to recover liquidated damages covered in the agreement.

The agreement said that if a shareholder or employee left DML for any reason other than death, retirement or permanent and total disability and performed services for DML clients within three years after leaving the firm, the shareholder or employee must pay damages equal to 125% of the amount billed to the former DML clients for the fiscal year immediately before the year of termination or the year the clients were taken, whichever was later. The trial court ruled in favor of GDD and refused to enforce the damages provision.

On appeal, DML argued the agreement did not constitute a covenant not-to-compete because it did not prohibit competition. The payment of liquidated damages was not a penalty for competition, the firm said, but rather a recognition that DML must repurchase the departing accountant's stock at a price that is difficult to calculate.

The court, however, characterized the damage amount called for in the agreement not as a "purchase price" of stock but, rather, a severe penalty triggered by competition. The agreement's ultimate effect was to prevent competition against DML for three years unless a steep price was paid. Although the court recognized DML's need to protect itself from the risk an employee may "pirate" clients, its efforts to avert competition were too great.

The agreement also was too broad, the court said, because it prohibited working with former DML clients regardless of who initiated the contact. Furthermore, the agreement had set no geographic or territorial limits. Consequently, the court found the agreement to be, in effect, a covenant not-to-compete, which was unreasonable in several respects and, therefore, unenforceable against the former firm members. (Dougherty, McKinnon & Luby P.C. v. Greenwald, Denzik & Davis P.C. 447, S.E. 2d 94)

--Edited by Wayne Baliga, CPA, JD, CPCU, president of Aon Technical Insurance Services.
COPYRIGHT 1995 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1995, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Baliga, Wayne
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Article Type:Brief Article
Date:Mar 1, 1995
Words:391
Previous Article:Nonpracticing CPA can advertise CPA designation, U.S. Supreme Court says.
Next Article:Client financial check-up checklist.
Topics:


Related Articles
A new look at restrictive covenants.
How to value covenants not to compete; the appraiser must put a dollar figure on a series of qualitative assessments.
Antitrust limits on acquisitions of physician practices - new threshold suggested.
Partnership withdrawal.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
The Impact of Tighter Credit.
Bush urges high court to overturn pledge decision. (In The Capital).
To compete or noncompete: a noncompete agreement is an important tool to safeguard a firm or company's interests.
Legislative proposals relating to the treatment of restrictive covenants: February 10, 2006.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters