Tuesday, 16 February 2016

Restrictive Covenants In Employment Contracts: Brief Note


This brief note provides a simplified overview of the law in this area.

You should talk to a qualified, authorised & regulated Solicitor for a complete understanding of how it may affect your particular circumstances.

This brief note explains what restrictive covenants are, when they are likely to be enforceable and how they can be used in employment contracts to protect a business’s interests.

What is a restrictive covenant and when will it be enforceable?
  • A business can use restrictive covenants to protect its interests by restricting an employee’s activities for a period of time after their employment has ended.
  • A restrictive covenant will only be enforceable if it protects a legitimate business interest, otherwise it will be regarded as an unlawful restraint of trade. The only recognised business interests are:
    • trade connections (including the relationship between the business’s customers and its workforce); and
    • trade secrets and confidential information.
  • If a business has a legitimate business interest to protect, the restriction will be enforceable, provided it is no wider than is necessary to protect that interest. The covenant must be limited in terms of the restrictive activities themselves, and also apply:
    • for a limited time; and
    • within a limited geographical area (if appropriate).
Ensure restrictive covenants are drafted carefully
Restrictive covenants must be drafted carefully so that they:
  • Accurately reflect each employee’s role.
  • Reflect the circumstances of the business.
  • Go no further than is necessary.
A business should regularly review contracts that include restrictive covenants and check whether they need to be updated (for example, if the employee’s role has changed).

Non-solicitation restrictive covenants
Customers
  • A business can include a covenant in an employee’s contract preventing them for soliciting customers after they have left the business they worked for. This type of covenant will be particularly useful if the employee has a strong relationship with certain customers.
  • Generally, the covenant should be restricted to customers that the employee had contact with during a specified period before they left. There are a number of factors the business should consider when trying to establish the length of this period, including:
    • the amount of time it would take for the employee’s successor to gain influence over the business contacts;
    • the employee’s seniority within the business;
    • the extent of the employee’s role in securing new business;
    • the loyalty (or otherwise) of customers in the particular market; and
    • the length of similar restrictions in the employment contracts of competitors.
Potential customers
A restrictive covenant that attempts to extend the restriction to potential customers will be harder to enforce. However, it may be possible to protect an interest in genuine prospective customers if they are accurately defined.

Other employees
A restrictive covenant preventing a former employee from poaching a business’ existing employees is likely to be enforceable, as the stability of the business’s workforce is a legitimate business interest.
However, the covenant should usually be limited to those employees at the same level as the former employee and those more senior to them. Any clause that attempts to prohibit the poaching of employees will need to consider:
  • How long the former employee’s influence over the other employees will last.
  • The roles of the employees over whom the influence exists.
Non-dealing restrictive covenants
  • A restriction on the solicitation of customers can be extended to cover not only enticement or interference (where active steps are taken by the former employee), but also the provision of services where no active steps are required (for example, where the customer approaches the former employee). This is known as a non-dealing covenant.
  • This type of covenant has a clear advantage as it avoids the need to prove that the former employee made an approach, which is usually difficult to show. However, it does broaden the prohibition and consequently may make it more difficult to enforce.
  • The enforceability of a non-dealing covenant will depend on the interest the business is trying to protect (for example, enforcement may be more likely if the business can establish a substantial personal connection between the former employee and the business’s customers).
Non-competition restrictive covenants
  • Employees are prohibited from disclosing confidential information amounting to a trade secret (for example, a manufacturing process) after they leave your business. A business can also include express confidentiality provisions in their employment contract to protect the information. Therefore, additional restrictive covenants may be regarded as unnecessary, and non-competition restrictions in particular can be hard to enforce.
  • However, there are circumstances in which a non-competition restriction is likely to be enforced. For example, where the former employee’s influence over customers or suppliers is so great that the only effective protection is to ensure they are not engaged in a competing business in any way.
For further information or to discuss specific aspects or issues, please feel free to contact :

Principal & Business Law Solicitor

U.K. Cell. Tel. +44 (0) 7788 537 187
 

Wednesday, 6 January 2016

New Year = New Promises . . .

Sadly, the Festive Season is often the 'last straw - which breaks the camel's back' with regard to many personal relationships (and as a Solicitor, I generally experience each and every year a 'spike' in requests for referrals to associated legal experts specialising in divorce law and related family matters in the first few weeks of January).

Included within the above referred to habitual unfortunate circumstances are broken engagements, which can be very painful and confusing for those involved.  On top of all the emotional distress, the interested parties have to decide who keeps what from certain assets which have been bought with thoughts of a shared future together.

This year I was party to an initial discussion relating to a 'difference of opinion / understanding' over the ownership of a (valuable) engagement ring.

It was educational (for me - at least) to learn that the legal position for engagement rings is relatively clearly governed - by a near fifty year old statutory provision,  section 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, which specifically states:
The gift of an engagement ring shall be presumed to be an absolute gift; this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the condition, express or implied, that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason.
Although it may well seem unfair, this legislation would appear to be intended to keep such disputes out of court - by providing that unless there was an agreement to return the engagement ring if the wedding were not to occur — which a court could imply if (say) the ring is a family heirloom — a fiancĂ©e (or fiancĂ©) is under no obligation to return an engagement ring (regardless of who it was who 'called off' the engagement).

This position can be particularly unpleasant if one party seeks to keep a ring, and the other party is solely responsible for a loan taken out to finance acquisition of that ring.

In the hope that it might help people in the future, I make this blog post inviting people to think about their possible agreements upon engagement.

I suspect that few people actively consider the legal aspects of pledging your love with an engagement ring, but in not doing so - people risk 'possession being nine tenths of the law'.  

Happy New Year everyone . . .   

   

Monday, 14 December 2015

Loan Arrangements - Safe & Settled -v- (Potentially) Acrimonious & Vague!


Having spent some considerable time over recent weeks seeking to assist businessmen with the 'issues' which have arisen - when they (thought they had) 'agreed' a large loan arrangement on the back of an old menu in a restaurant - I wanted to put on record that settling and documenting proposed loan arrangements (ideally - before they are entered into) is always a worthwhile step - if only to save a long term friendship from considerable strain!   

The 'trick' to reasonably rapidly settling the terms of a loan arrangement and / or documenting the same (in a manner which is 'usable' in the future) - is to use a sensible template loan docment which is a compromise between conciseness and completeness.

I frequently settle & document loan arrangements in a wide range of amounts & formalities - and can relatively rapidly adapt my (see my front-piece extract - below) template document to client's arrangements.

Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss any aspects / issues where a conversation might assist you.

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

(+44 ) 7788 537 187 (U.K. Cell. Tel.)








Thursday, 3 December 2015

Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) - Recent Changes

'No' To Acquisitions -v- 'Yes' To Growth Capital

The relevant EIS related legislation (which supports H.M. Government's efforts to encourage SME investment) has recently changed slightly (late in November 2015 - as the U.K.’s second budget this year finally (!) obtained Royal Assent).

While ‘the devil is always in the detail’ (you should always refer directly to the relevant legislation - which is not easy to follow, not least because it changes all the time in a convoluted fashion – by virtue of attempts to comply with EU rules etc.), those involved in small business finance should be aware of the following.

The relevant legislation contains a test relating to the ‘use of money’ raised - which provides that the money raised by the share issue must be employed for the purposes of a qualifying business activity (broadly, a qualifying trade, preparing to carry on a qualifying trade if the trade is commenced within two years, or research and development from which it is intended that a qualifying trade will be carried on) (section 174, ITA 2007).

For shares issued on or after 18 November 2015, employing money on the acquisition of an interest in a company, a trade, or goodwill and intangible assets employed for the purposes of a trade, will no longer satisfy the use of money raised requirement (paragraph 11, Schedule 5, Finance (No.2) Act 2015).

Accordingly, it is now highly unlikely that a transaction can be structured so that EIS reliefs can attach to monies which are used in a merger or acquisition (M & A) transaction - historically a useful 'sweetener' to such deals which well briefed legal advisors had been able to offer their clients.

As regards any subscription proceeds which can be characterised as being used for ‘growth' or 'development' capital (such funding being -  of course - what the legislation is intended to encourage), it should still be possible to satisfy HMRC that the relevant shares are (to be) issued in order to raise money for the purpose of a qualifying business activity.

For shares issued on or after 18 November 2015, the legislation expressly includes the additional requirement that the shares are issued to promote the business growth and development of the issuing company (paragraph 10, Schedule 5, Finance (No.2) Act 2015).  


This requirement is now made explicit to reflect state aid requirements.  The European Commission's state aid guidelines support the provision of tax incentives for the expansion stage of smaller businesses.  Hence the new explicit requirement that shares are issued to promote the issuing company's business growth and development.

Always remember that there a host of other tests (e.g. parent / subsidiaries structures – need particular care) which need to be satisfied for EIS reliefs to be available to investors – such that it is always wise to have the settled investment structure ‘blessed’ by someone with a knowledge of the legislation, and ideally – obtain advance assurance from HMRC’s relevant small business team(s) that EIS reliefs would appear prima facie seemingly to be available.   

Please feel free to directly contact me to discuss any of aspects of, or issues relating to EIS (if you wish to do so).

It goes without saying – but Equitable Law would of course be delighted to discuss assisting with the taxation aspects of funding transactions involving EIS.

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com


+44 (0) 7788 537 187 (U.K. Cell. Tel.)

Thursday, 12 November 2015

Offshore Tax Structures For Everyone ! (?)


Today's 'The Times' (Thursday, 12th November) business section contains an article about a small Welsh town whose businessmen are proposing to copy various e-commerce multinational business and adopt offshore tax planning structures - so to minimise the tax they pay.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/tax/article4611746.ece#commentsStart

I suspect that the U.K.'s taxation authority (HMRC) may be 'surprised' as to how many times I've seen relatively small businesses proposing to structure themselves in precisely such a manner!

For example, I am aware of numerous G.P.s - whom (after having been handed responsibility for their entirely publicly funded budgets) appear to show no embarrassment in terms of seeking to remunerate themselves with minimal responsibility to pay any tax! 

The U.K. Government has really got to 'get a grip' on this issue - as it is simply not fair.

Until then, please feel free to discuss your tax saving issues with me . . .

Regards

@DanRJohnson       

Thursday, 29 October 2015

SSL Certificate Extended Validation Legal Opinion Letters for English Companies

Equitable Law (Mr. Dan Johnson) wishes to record that we have considerable experience of acting for clients with web-based businesses (trading through English companies) who are seeking to enroll for SSL ' Extended Validation Certificates'.

SSL EV Certificates are (very broadly) the digital equivalents of a company stamp or seal - and are issued on behalf of a number of certification authorities (e.g. From 'StartCom', 'GeoTrust' Etc.)

Often, our clients have spent considerable wasted time dealing with a wide range of unqualified, unauthorised and / or unregulated 'legal advisers' - Whom the certification authorities (for good measure) consider unacceptable for the required purposes.

Please don't waste your time - Make contact direct!

Our turn-around times and fee proposals are extremely attractive.

Regards

Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com

+1 (646) 470 1880 (Worldwide Roaming e-Tel.)   

Tuesday, 20 October 2015

BEWARE - Rewarding Employees With Dividend Bearing Shares (Particularly From 2016)


As a Solicitor with expertise in the fields of company (and other 'business law' areas), I have assisted with the introduction of a number of 'employee / dividend bearing share schemes' in the past.

However, I always have to advise that such schemes are generally open to challenge by HMRC, with the risk (of unpaid tax, interest & penalties) potentially falling upon the company / employer - for arguably not having operated employment related securities legislation and PAYE correctly.

It is relatively rare for such proposals to originate (or be actively supported) by a client's general / ongoing (accountancy &) taxation advisers - As many are nervous of being considered by HMRC as assisting with or promoting the implementation & operating of such schemes (which then potentially risks their other clients affairs being more closely examined by HMRC!)

Accordingly, most persons who request such services have often been advised by 'an acquaintance in business' (a.k.a. 'their mate in the bar at the golf club') and they may choose to take the risks involved in such schemes - upon the (arguably - not unreasonable) view that HMRC may not have the manpower (or other resources) to identify and challenge such arrangements.    

However, anyone currently considering such schemes (i.e. in late 2015) needs to be aware that in the July 2015 H.M. Government Budget it was announced that the taxation of dividends will be reformed, with legislation to be introduced in 2016.

The government noted that the reform would "reduce the incentive to ... remunerate through dividends rather than wages to reduce tax liabilities".

The impact on the use of shares to reward employees in general will not be clear until detailed legislation is published (next year), but it is believed probable that it will make such share based / dividend  schemes generally incur more tax in aggregate (i.e. Corporation Tax + Income Tax) than simply paying elements of remuneration under PAYE (for which the company / employer enjoys a deductible expense).

Beware of anyone who currently seeks to advise you to implement such a scheme without providing the above warning - particularly now - as they are likely to be wasting your money!

Dan Johnson (of Equitable Law) has now prepared a relatively concise and clear note upon the relevant issues, so that any interested parties are aware of the current potential problems (and likely additional problems - in the future) of seeking to implement such a scheme.  Please let me know if you would like a copy of the same.

However - Notwithstanding the above - If you wished to proceed with such a scheme - They can be introduced relatively cost effectively and with minimal effort (albeit their days appear numbered!).

We would be happy to discuss any issues arising from the above - Particularly with anyone currently operating such a scheme or those who are interested in potentially legal and practically workable arrangements to reduce the charges to tax.    


October 2015


Dan.Johnson@EquitableLaw.com


07788 537 187 (U.K. Cell. Tel.)