Non-Compete, Necessity of Court Action Provision

In the event company feels it is appropriate to seek a court order to enforce either the confidentiality or restricted competition provisions of this agreement:

a. You agree that it is appropriate for the court to grant injunctive relief and damages to company. You agree that the court should provide company with the greatest protections possible through injunctive relief. In the event a court called upon to enforce this agreement determines that it should be reformed, you will join company and asking a court to grant company the greatest degree of protection available through the confidentiality and restricted competition provisions of the agreement; and

b. You agree that companies should and will recover from you any and all attorneys fees, costs, and expenses company incurs in enforcing all or any part of the confidentiality and restricted competition provisions of this agreement. You agree that company should recover its attorneys fees, costs, and expenses even if the Court reforms this agreement and enforces the agreement as a reformed.

Jurisdiction-variance notice (add to every non-compete-related clause used): Non-compete restrictions are void or unenforceable as a matter of state law in California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, and Washington's near-total ban takes effect June 30, 2027. Several other states (e.g., Illinois, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.) impose salary thresholds, advance-notice requirements, or other conditions on enforceability. Confirm the current rule in the executive's home state -- and any state where the restriction would be enforced -- before relying on this clause; in a ban state, no drafting choice makes a non-compete enforceable.