Court rules in favour of UBS in UK wealth case
From the description here and in The London Times, I do question the grounds for the suit. I know the grounds I would use in Indiana - breach of a non-competition agreement and/or trade secrets. Neither of those bases get mentioned by the press. Using a preliminary injunction applies just as much here as there. (For more on trade secrets, non-competition agreements or injunctions, just click on the links below for those subjects0.
The High Court judge has this morning ruled that UBS should be entitled to a springboard injunction on the grounds that Vestra deliberately solicited clients and staff away from UBS, and that senior ex-UBS staff breached their duty of fidelity.
A springboard injunction is a ruling against former employees suspected of trying to get an unfair start when launching a new business. As part of the injunctive relief, the defendant is no longer allowed to take on UBS clients or staff until the trial, which begins on October 2.
***
The judge added it was "inherently unlikely that nearly the whole department would leave UBS en masse without extensive discussions between staff beforehand." He believed instead that departments within UBS were "seething" with plots and plans for many months. These were "obvious breaches of the loyalty and fidelity" owed to UBS.
From the description here and in The London Times, I do question the grounds for the suit. I know the grounds I would use in Indiana - breach of a non-competition agreement and/or trade secrets. Neither of those bases get mentioned by the press. Using a preliminary injunction applies just as much here as there. (For more on trade secrets, non-competition agreements or injunctions, just click on the links below for those subjects0.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment