[Modified from original post on or about February 5, 2007]
In this post, we’ll look at employment contracts in general, non-competitive agreements, and what happens if a former employer with whom you signed a non-competitive agreement claims you are violating one.
Non-competitive clauses have three main pillars: Term, Scope and Territory.
Term refers to the time or duration.
Territory is self-explanatory.
Scope is the definition of the business.
For the sake of definition, a contract of adhesion is a ”type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage,” according to the Thomson Gale Legal Dictionary found on Answers.com.
Admittedly, a Non Competition agreement tends to be a Contract of Adhesion, and are not valid according to many Judges.
The rationale is that if you are a random job-seeker who is looking for employment and a prospective employer hires you, you do not have much leverage in negotiating a fair and reasonable employment contract. Believe it or not, in this case, you are almost better off not trying to negotiate one and simply sign what is offered to you. This way, the contract you sign is a contract of adhesion.
Of course, the words on the paper should in theory be secondary to the spirit of the agreement. Understand what it is that said employer is concerned with and try to make sure that you do not violate that. After all, loyalty is a nice thing to demonstrate to any employer, past, present or future. Furthermore, if you show to your new employer a tendency to violate a non-competition agreement you signed with a previous one, it does give a cause for concern to your new boss. Or, at least, it should.
Non competition agreements outline three parameters: 1. Scope of Business, 2. Territory and 3. Term.
1. Scope of Business
Realistically, no employer can forbid you to gain an income. But sometimes a court will uphold a concise, clear, fair and valid non competition agreement. The key is that it cannot be so vague that there is room for interpretation and debate. If a court finds one to be unclear, they will not strive to clarify it, they will simply strike it down.
But, if you are a key employee who has a reasonable, valid and enforcable non-competition clause, then non-solicitation clauses might indeed be upheld if the courts feel that you can earn an income in a way that does not violate your contract.
2. Territory
In offline settings, territory is usually limited to a city, state or country, even a continent. No one can forbid to work in a competitive business around the world. If you are an employer seeking a global Territory, good luck. Of course, if you operate online, it is reasonable, in all fairness, to ask for a worldwide clause for territory, but then to avoid the courts striking it down, you need to have a very specific Scope of Business or short Duration. If an employer is greedy, the court will decide that they are being unreasonable and strike down the non-compete. This is risky for employers and as such, an employer better not be greedy with regards to one.
3. Term/Duration
The length of time that an employer forbids you to work in a given industry, or for a given competitor needs to be reasonable. You cannot, for example, expect a judge to agree that ”forever” is reasonable. This depends on the industry, sometimes 2 years is valid, sometimes 1 year is not. It is not a black and white matter. In one case affecting Earthlink, a judge decided that even six months was too long due to the rapid changes in the online industry!
A very important consideration is whether or not an employee left voluntarilty (and not as a result of constructive dismissal) or was dismissed outright. In cases of voluntary resignation, non-competition can be valid. In the case of constructive dismissal and outright firings, non-competition agreements tend to be invalid, because the main pillar is that one should be able to earn a living.
Furthermore, a very important consideration, proven time and time again is that competition is welcome (if one exists, that is) and only illegal or unfair competition can be prevented through a fair and valid non-competition agreeements. There are easily dozens of cases that support these statements.
Because a lot can happen and cases take a while to reach the courts, sometimes an employer who feels they were wronged can choose to file an injunction. An injunction - depending on what kind of injunction it is - effectively prevents you from doing something. In the context of an employee joining a competitor, an injunction will prevent an employee from joing that competitor until the case heads to the court. In the context of an employee launching a new company, an injunction will prevent an employee from starting / operating the company until the case heads to the court.
For more on injunctions, read on.
Injunctions: Provisional, Interlocutory, Permanent
A Provisional Injunction, if granted, shuts you down for 10 days.
An Interlocutory Injunction shuts you down until the Trial.
A Permanent Injunction, well, that’s the kybosh on your business.
Those who seek injunctions do so hoping that it proves so expensive and costly that a Provisional turns into a de facto Permanent one.
In the case of Injunctions, the system is clear: you are guilty until proven innocent. Well, not quite. Here is how it works. With injunctions, the party moving (making the motion) swears on the face of the record, through affidavits, that there is some harm being caused by the defendant. They submit affidavits, along with documents supporting their claims. Since they swear that these are all true and accurate (though sometimes, we presume, they are not), a defendant can only argue his or her case using the documents that are submitted on the face of the record.
This seems draconian, and at face value it is, but the truth is that the party seeking the injunction needs to pass some tests. And to pass these tests you need a good lawyer, and well, facts!
In other words, when the matter is frivolous and lacks merit, the Judge will see through it and laugh the plaintiffs out of court. We’ve never seen this happen, of course, but we’re sure it must happen at some point.
The Judicial system, as complicated and costly as it might be, makes sense in some ways.
The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.
To obtain a Provisional Injunction, the plaintiff/petitioner must pass four tests:
- Urgency: there must be an urgent need to shut me down. In laymen’s terms, you get to your gas station one morning and someone is bulldozing the neighbor’s lawn to erect a competing gas station, but that might not be enough, since that is competition only, what would be cause for an injunction is if it’s an old employee of yours with whom you signed a non-competition; or if they are not an employee, it is someone who is using your trademark.
- Clear Right: Here the plaintiff needs to prove that there is a material similarity in business, or that they have a clear right to get an injunction. This sometimes is used interchangeably with Clear and Apparent Right. If it is Clear Right, it it harder for the plaintiffs and easier for the accused, if it is Apparent Right, it is the opposite.
- Balance of Inconvenience: The key here is not who is bigger or smaller, but rather, who suffers more from the Judge’s decision.
- Irreparable Harm: In the fourth and final test, the plaintiffs must prove that by staying open for business, I cause irreparable harm to them. Loss of clients, traffic or revenue was their argument.
It should be stated, unequivocally, that harm is far and away the most important factor here. If no harm is done, or if for some odd reason the plaintiff says that no harm is done, no way will the injunction be granted. Furthermore, even if some harm is done, then harm needs to be so irreparable and immeasurable that it cannot be quantified in the eventual trial, and as such the judge will grant temporary relief as to prevent losses of an immeasurable scale. When a client walks into a lawyer’s office, it is probable that this point is not well articulated by the lawyers. Of course, it is up to the client to really explain the case to the lawyer, since lawyers cannot be expected to be experts at all industries. Oftentimes, injunctions are of a personal, frivolous and meritless nature seeking to intimidate and outspend the opposition into capitulating.
Back to injunctions: The only difference between a provisional and interlocutory injunction is that the former entails an urgent matter whereas the latter does not. In other words, to obtain an interlocutory injunction, you only need to pass three tests (the same four, less urgency).
The last injunction - permanent - is granted at the merit stage… which can be years after the initial motion is made, that is why those who want to outspent the defendant knowing they do not have a case or having a very strong case will choose to file a provisional one, hoping that they can make it a de facto permanent one.
Bear one thing in mind, injunctions are expensive. We’ve heard of companies spending $100,000 and more to file one. While you can defend yourself for less, most lawyers will tell you that it can cost $40,000 to $100,000 to fight one. Of course, you can represent yourself, but only a fool would represent himself. Right?
Last but not least, one major consideration.
Right to Self-Representation; Right of Business Owner to Represent His Company
It should be noted that in most jurisdictions, an individual who is not a lawyer can represent himself (or herself). But in some markets, an individual who is not a lawyer cannot represent himself. If you leave one company and join a competitor, you should ensure that you ask your new employer to foot the bill in the event your former employer sues you… and if you start your own company and have to hire lawyers to represent your company (and thus incur big fees) and prefer not to; here’s one loophole, jurisprudence exists showing that a company can only sue someone who is a party to a contract, technically, you are - as an individual - party to a contract, and not your new company. But some lawyers will sue your company anyway hoping that you do not realize that loophole to get you to spend your way into losing.
The bottom line is: be honest, do the right thing and do not sign contracts with bad people. That is the only way to sleep well at night.
Constructive Dismissal?
Oh, one last thing, if you had a non-competition agreement but lost your job over constructive dismissal, which is many things but includes:
- loss of reponsibilities
- loss of salary
- loss of power and prestige
- being overlooked for a promotion you asked for and deserved it…
Then there is a good chance that the non-competition is going to be struck down because you were, in fact, forced to resign. We’re not sure how easy it is to prove constructive dismissal, but this is why it is always easier to prove such a thing if you keep records (emails, etc.) proving that you were indeed a victim of constructive dismissal.
It should be noted that I am not a lawyer, but having written on career advice for six years, this is a topic that I have been asked about. You should consult with a lawyer, but if you find yourself in a tough spot, feel free to email me at ash@mojosupreme.com. Good luck, and remember, things are never as bad as they might appear.
Subscribe:
May 16th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
powerful.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:33 am
good on ya. fight the power!
May 23rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
[…] Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that Mr. Rupert Murdoch’s lieutenants are intent of shutting my business down even though a) I do not compete with them; b) violate the terms of my non-competition with their company and c) have acted in good faith. But for more on that, read my post on my mini-victory at the Provisional Stage of their Motion for an Injunction here. I say “mini-victory” cause I just spent a weekend prepping for Interlocutory Injunctions in preparation for my May 29th appearance in Court - can you say “yippie?” At least it was raining all weekend. […]
June 4th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
[…] Now, he probably assumed I emailed him cause he is suing me, since he does not know that I make it a habit of emailing everyone from Mark Cuban to Bill Gates when I get these crazy ideas. I am not sure if he reads his email, let alone get my suggestion. I told him that by doing so, he could be both MySpace and YouTube. […]
June 13th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
[…] All right, call the lawyers… […]
June 30th, 2006 at 11:52 am
[…] Which gets me to my point: Google knows that it needs to diversify, so it is growing in many directions, including taking on eBay, Craigslist, MSFT etc. But it knows that those companies have focused on their core and will not be “killed” overnight, hence why Google does not come out and say “we’re here to killl competitor X.” More power to them for showing some class in a time and age where most business people and business organizations lack it big time. […]
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pm
[…] You see, I admire and respect Mr. Bonnie for the simple reason that he bought up a lot of valuable real estate online in the early days and sat on it: CNET owns url’s like search.com, TV.com and the like. Of course, CNET’s bread and butter is the namesake website and news.com, along with many other properties like Gamespot.com. I am not a gamer, but from what I hear from them, Gamespot.com is as good of a website if not better than major competitor IGN.com. Disclaimer: I was an employee of IGN.com for six months after they bought a site I worked at. I was there when News Corp. bought them, both News Corp. and IGN are fine companies, though I’d appreciate it if they left me the hell alone. All to say, when it comes to competition, CNET’s got plenty. […]
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:03 pm
[…] They lost the first round, but they insist on harassing me cause frankly, they are between a rock and a hard place. Read the initial blog on how I beat them in Phase 1 here. It’s a 6,000 word post, but you can imagine I had a lot to say. […]
August 4th, 2006 at 10:57 am
[…] But I held out initially and represented myself; I avoided being outspent from the get-go. That gave me an edge. If you want to read the 6,000-word post on how the first phase – the Provisional Injunction – went, read this, sit back and enjoy. In two words: I won. […]
August 11th, 2006 at 11:16 am
[…] Editor’s Note: This is the latest installment in WatchMojo.com’s Special Feature, Commentary on the “Law Chronicles: Our Adventures and Lessons in the Case of News Corporation/Fox Interactive Media/IGN Entertainment/AskMen vs. Ashkan Karbasfrooshan and WatchMojo.com.” For previous posts, click here. Are Leaders Born or Are They Made? Are Leaders Born or Are They Made? That’s the question that USC’s Warren Bennis sought to answer, and his answer, of course, was that leaders are made, not born. In his mind, a lowly-touted quarterback could go on to win the Super Bowl, a shy general could eventually lead an army to victory, and an unassuming low-level manager could go on to become CEO of a successful company. Perhaps, after all, who am I to argue with Mr. Bennis? But having covered and studied management, history and sports success stories for ten years, I also realized that there are many kinds of leaders. Leadership can be cut and carved out in many ways. For the purposes of this analysis, we’ll break it up as following: The good, the bad and the ugly Let us state that a leader by its very connotation is someone who is in a leadership position. It can be formal or informal. There’s an assumption that they have succeeded on some level, which is a fair assumption; but there’s also an assumption that they are virtuous, and that is a false assumption. After all, Hitler was a “leader” in his own right and in the minds of millions of people when Germany was picking itself up after World War I. As that case illustrates, ‘tis a rather subjective thing: in current affairs, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah party is seen as a leader by over one billion people, while another billion demonize him. The point here is that leadership is a subjective thing – regardless of what Warren Bennis might have concluded. If we are to break up leadership into three silos: good, bad and ugly, we need to – admittedly subjectively – determine who is who? Nature vs. Nurture Before we do, it’s important to consider Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher who spent a lot of time and brain power arguing the debate between nature and nurture. In other words, how much of who we are predetermined by nature, and how much is determined by nurture: our experiences and education. Obviously, one who experiences and endures hardship and can overcome obstacles tends to become a leader. But what kind of leader do they become? A Good Leader A good leader is someone who can be summed up by the words: good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. These words come from the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism, a religion that influenced Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That’s the nature component. Naturally, we all face adversity; it’s how we manage these that make us a good, bad or ugly leader. After all, everyone can be a generous and friendly person when times are good, but it’s how you conduct yourself when the going gets rough that determines your ultimate legacy. In this context, a good leader is someone others look up to and respect. Respect, like power and money, are things we all crave. Some crave one thing more than the other. A few crave to be feared. A Bad Leader A bad leader is someone who lacks those virtuous traits (“good thoughts, good words, and good deeds”) but wants to experience success at practically any cost. He’ll disregard the human element, not because he means harm per se, but because he lacks the traits and upbringing to know any differently. He means well, generally speaking, but his lack of ethics, dishonesty or simple pettiness, get the better of him. This is why some of his followers dislike him and a few fear him. Of course, if you fear something or someone, that says more about you than the source of the fear. But that’s for next week, when we look at the lieutenants. When it comes to bad leaders, most simply do not care. Followers and soldiers view the bad leader as someone who is simply there, a necessary evil. Forget taking a bullet for the guy, they’ll practically celebrate when he goes down. An Ugly Leader Ugly leaders are those who not only have good traits, but have bad traits and as a result of their actions and words lack the respect of their followers. In good times, they can camouflage their shortcomings, but in bad times, they are hollow. As a result, in bad times, they are hated; in good times, they are tolerated. But when they are put to the test, they show their true colors and generally fail. You know the saying: you can take a peasant out of a farm, but you can’t take the farmer out of the peasant. If you’re a sore loser, you’ll lack class in victory. And even then, victory will prove elusive because once you win and act callously; you fail to give your followers more incentive to win for you. A true leader is one who works for the greatest good of all. What’s All of This Pontification About? These are all issues I’ve debated and examined over the past 6 years in general, and the past six months in particular. A couple of weeks ago, I ran into a couple of old colleagues, whose boss (my old boss, basically) was suing me in a meritless case. He had sold his company to a big corporation (first IGN Entertainment, who itself got acquired by News Corporation), proceeded to push me out when he didn’t need me anymore, and when I “dared” moved on to greener horizons, he whined to his new, deep-pocketed bosses and encouraged them to intimidate me by suing me. As readers of this venerable site know, I represented myself in the case and embarrassed his henchmen lawyers; the Judge laughed them out of the room, telling them to stop harassing me. They did not, insisting to continue. For more details, click here. Until they stop their harassment, I will write about it and demonstrate the folly of their ways. After all, News Corporation’s Fox Interactive Media is going out there trying to show what a wonderful place it is for startups and young entrepreneurs. I guess this is how they decided to demonstrate that: by suing a startup and young entrepreneur whom they pushed out a few months ago. Nice, classy, virtuous. Mind you, I do not blame News Corp. or FOX or IGN. They have to back the company they acquired, even if the company’s leader is wrong in the matter. That’s fair game, I suppose, but pardon me for not playing the game by your rules and shutting up. You have big expensive lawyers, I have the facts. And, I beat your lawyers in round 1, and now that I can go on the offensive, I will expose the weakness of your case. Business is Always Personal Last week, I began writing again on the matter and covered the 13 Lessons I learned from the Forces of Evil and Greed. As I mentioned, until they cease harassing me, I will share with the world my experiences and provide you with an insight into my experiences. I decided to follow up with the players involved. Today, as you probably figured out, we look at my old boss, Ricardo Poupada. A man who borrowed Play boy and Maxim’s recipe, put it online, and could have become a part of the dot com road kill, but who instead avoided the fate of most, managed it with a tight fist, sold his company, and is now sitting pretty in News Corporation. Obviously, that wasn’t enough for him. People, count me as a small footnote in the company’s story, but I’ve been trying to understand why someone you work alongside with, report to loyally, deliver stellar operational results for and help make a millionaire four-times over, could go on and sue you after he pushes you out. It doesn’t make sense. Maybe he realizes he could have sold it for more had he held out. Who knows, who cares? But why take it out on me? Go grab a copy of Play boy and release some stress pal. Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty? But while it would be easy to make this a profanity-laced tirade, I will not stoop to that level, preferring instead to keep things somewhat civil (with the yard stick of civility being that the other side tried to shut me and my business down, mind you), write on broader leadership/management theory and give readers something they can use, whether they are the leader, the soldier; the founder, the employee, etc. My old boss’ mantra was “it’s not personal, it’s business.” So said the words on the screen saver in the boardroom PC, but he was the one who, according to his co-founders, took things most personally. That is probably why in his mind, despite everything I did for him, it was fair game for him to shut me down, because it was a “business decision.” I have enough evidence to prove that it was in fact a personal, frivolous decision. I know that, you know that, and the Judge will know that too. Regardless, here’s a word of advice for all young entrepreneurs, investors, etc.: one of the biggest mistakes you can make as a leader or a soldier is to use the popular adage “it’s not personal, it’s business” as a smokescreen. Let me be clear about one thing: that excuse is for unethical, dishonest and immoral individuals whose words and actions reek of disloyalty and dishonesty. As human beings are judged by what we say and do, everything we say and do is personal to who we say it about and whom we do it to. If you lack the intellectual capacity and empathy to realize that, then you are not a leader, or, rather, you are an ugly leader. A bad leader means no harm but lacks the tact to know better. A good leader understands that fact as a basic premise and acts accordingly, with class and dignity – and virtue; all traits that a bad or ugly leader lacks. Everything is personal. That’s why you should do business with good people. Same reason that when you are getting married, you shouldn’t get a good divorce lawyer and necessarily draft a good prenuptial agreement, you need to get a good wife. Invest in Yourself In 2000, I made a decision to set aside my personal objectives and ambitions and join Askmen. I had reservations; the dot com bubble had exploded. I didn’t exactly like the site’s heavy emphasis on dating, sex and all that good stuff. Upon joining the team, it was clear that I was an outsider, a tiny shareholder and for all intents and purposes, a mere employee. I knew this, the founders knew this, and of course, so did the colleagues. Regardless, I grew into a leadership role, both through actions and words. I decided to do something about the content, so I volunteered to write 10 features in the magazine’s two-week production cycle, writing 1,000 features, profiles – mainly under aliases. I also did my best to generate revenue, going on to generate 50-75% of the company’s revenues over my five-year tenure there. I also landed the company interviews with prominent newsmakers and celebrities, even getting our competitor Play boy’s publisher and founder Hugh Hefner to sit down with us. That’s like a computer startup getting Bill Gates to code for you, it’s a big deal. But of course, it was all done covertly, under aliases. A leader does that: get things done for the greater good and not ask for credit. Why am I getting into it now? I told you: I’m still being harassed in the Courts by the world’s most diversified media company. As a leader, the glass is half full: being sued by News Corporation makes me prouder than anything I did at that “tits and ass” publisher, make no doubt about it. You Can’t Handle the Truth I would love to throw out a “You Can’t Handle the Truth” in court, of course, I won’t. Likewise, as I have been forced to now spend time and build my case, I realize there’s a lot of stuff that won’t see the light of day in court. But, it sure is nice to talk about it. Upon much reflection, I realize that one of the reasons why I was sued and tried to be shut down is that counter to their claim, my company, WatchMojo.com, causes absolutely no harm to theirs, and in no way am I competing with them, or violating the terms of my non-competition agreement (which any novice lawyer would tell you is invalid, as theirs is). When the Judge asks “why is he being sued,” there’s one set of arguments. When friends and family ask me “why are they suing you,” I answer: - At a micro level: I am being sued because by not suing me and “allowing” me to grow my company, my inexperienced former boss, who lacks any of the traits you look for in a good leader and is as charismatic as a potato, risks letting the world see that he is not the one-man show he wants people to think that he is. That makes him less relevant in a company of 50,000 employees, especially when he is a mere employee himself and no longer major shareholder. At the macro level: I am being sued to set an example to others in the company. Two different employees who didn’t stand the environment at Askmen (many more left, but only a few started online projects) left and launched successful blogzines – I’d mention them but do not have their permission. This is their way to set an example. What they didn’t realize, was that I would not take their nonsense and fight back. After all, some “leaders” scare others into fearing the unknown so that they remain at the company and not start a company. After all, if others leave and go on to experience any success, it not only takes away from the leader’s accomplishments, bad leaders think, but might give others an incentive to stop putting up with the bad/ugly leader’s ways. That’s the lack of confidence I was referring to. I believe it was Jack Welch who argued that a good leader is one whose subordinates go on to accomplish greater things. I always tell every person I hire: “one day you will realize that you want more, you will come to me and tell me you want to leave. I hope that day never comes, but when it comes, I will ask you once: ‘is there anything I can do, offer or say to change your mind,’ I will be sincere, but I understand that there might be nothing I can do. At which point, the discussion changes and I will do my best to help you accomplish your goals.” I come to work every day and try to learn and avoid the pitfalls of management, trying to become a good leader. As Warren Bennis would probably agree, it’s a process, and not a destination. […]
August 18th, 2006 at 11:18 am
[…] We debated this once in front of the Judicial System, the Judge sided with me and laughed the aggressor out of Court. The judge told them to find a resolution outside of the courts. But when a lawsuit is frivolous, why listen to the Judge, right? […]
August 25th, 2006 at 11:14 am
[…] You know I tell no lies and do not make claims I cannot back. Mark my words: this document will bury you and the irony of it is it also highlights your greed and despotic ways. Double the pleasure… Once again, I will use your own greed against you, like I did in round 1. […]
September 1st, 2006 at 3:14 pm
[…] I was at my lawyer’s because noon was our deadline to contest their ludicrous, sallacious claims against myself and our company. Suffice to say that after embarassing them in court back in May, I welcome putting this matter to rest. Sadly, they insist on harassing me. We’ve covered quite a bit over the past few months on this blog, and I’ve gotten a lot of questions from lawyers and business people who have taken an interest in seeing how these matters unfold. […]
October 12th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
[…] I usually pontificate over multiple-thousand posts, for those, check these out: YouTube’s potential revenues http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=500 Did Google Overpay for FIM’s Search Business? http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=317 The Domain Name Ecosystem http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=285 How News Corp. Tried to Sue me and Totally Lost http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=150 Anyway, I’ll keep this one short: To show you why YouTube totally kicks ass: […]
October 17th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
[…] But call me crazy (please, do; I’ve been called worst!) but I think that a human touch goes a long way, especially online. That’s another thing about MetaMojo.com. While the world wide web seems to reward anything that automates X and accelerates Y, there is room for - sit down, take a deep breath - a human being’s judgment. Google has already demonstrated an aversion to this approach (and rewarded with a market cap north of $120 billion), and its competitors have to race against time to catch Google up. […]
October 25th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
[…] Of course, meshing business with writing makes sense, and sometimes, some readers welcome getting an insight into the every day obstacles of building a business: from mundane tasks like replacing a crappy printer, to taking on and soundily defeating an unfair lawsuit from none other than News Corporation’s Fox Interactive Media’s IGN subsidiary. […]
October 31st, 2006 at 6:21 pm
[…] We’ve put up with an unfair and unethical lawsuit from News Corporation/IGN Entertainment and managed to defend ourselves and survive. Of course, it’s not hard to win when you have the facts on your side, you are honest and you can expose others’ greed and arrogance through their own actions and lies. […]
November 4th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
[…] Is there anything less positive I could add? Of course. A mere 2 months after I asked him to sit on the board of the company, he did orchestrate an unfair and unreasonable and ultimately unsuccessful motion for an injunction to shut down my company (I repped myself and beat their expensive lawyers: I would have given anything to hear his reaction to that!). […]