Advanced Marine Enterprises, Inc. v. PRC Inc.
256 Va. 106, 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 4, 501 S.E.2d 148 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-competition agreement is enforceable if it is reasonably tailored to protect the employer's legitimate business interests, is not unduly harsh on the employee, and is not against public policy. Additionally, a claim for business conspiracy under Virginia law requires proof of legal malice (intentional, purposeful action without lawful justification), not actual malice (a primary purpose to injure).
Facts:
- PRC Inc. required its employees, including those in its marine engineering department, to sign a uniform Employment Agreement containing a non-competition clause.
- In November 1995, C. Michael Pirrera, a senior manager in PRC’s marine engineering department, contacted a competitor, Advanced Marine Enterprises, Inc. (AME), to inquire if AME would be interested in hiring PRC's entire team of seven marine engineering managers.
- AME and the PRC Managers secretly formulated a plan for AME to hire every employee in PRC’s marine engineering department, with the objective of transferring the entire department, including customer relationships and contracts, from PRC to AME.
- As part of the plan, the PRC Managers used confidential and proprietary PRC information to create a 'matrix' detailing how to 'pull' or 'divert' PRC's jobs to AME.
- The plan required all 26 employees to resign on the same day, December 29, 1995, without providing the two weeks' notice required by PRC.
- In mid-December 1995, Pirrera sent an email to other managers instructing them to back up computer files and transfer files to client sites in preparation for the move.
- Before their mass resignation, many PRC employees copied or removed PRC's confidential and proprietary documents and client files without the company's knowledge or consent.
- On December 29, 1995, all 26 managers and employees of PRC's marine engineering department resigned effective immediately and commenced employment with AME.
Procedural Posture:
- PRC Inc. filed a bill of complaint against Advanced Marine Enterprises, Inc. (AME), its executives, and its former employees in a Virginia chancery court (the trial court), asserting both equitable and legal claims.
- The chancellor entered a temporary restraining order against the defendants, which was later modified.
- Following a bench trial, the chancellor found in favor of PRC on all relevant counts, including breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, breach of the employment agreement, and statutory business conspiracy.
- The chancellor awarded PRC $1,245,062 in compensatory damages, which was trebled to $3,735,186 on the business conspiracy count.
- The chancellor also awarded punitive damages (reduced to the $350,000 statutory cap for AME), attorney's fees, and costs.
- The chancellor enjoined the former employees from competing for the remaining seven and one-half months of the non-competition period, but stayed the injunction pending appeal.
- AME and the other defendants (as appellants) appealed the chancellor's final decree to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a non-competition agreement that prohibits a former employee from rendering competing services to or soliciting any customer of the employer for whom the employee performed services, for a period of eight months within a 50-mile radius of any of the employer's offices, an enforceable restraint on trade?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Keenan
Yes, the non-competition agreement is an enforceable restraint on trade. The court applies a three-part test to determine the reasonableness of a non-competition clause: (1) whether the restraint is necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests; (2) whether it is unduly harsh on the employee's ability to earn a livelihood; and (3) whether it is reasonable from a public policy standpoint. Here, the covenant is not unduly harsh because it does not impose a blanket prohibition on working for a competitor. Instead, it narrowly restricts the employee for only eight months from rendering competing services to, or soliciting, specific customers for whom the employee actually performed services. The geographic restriction of 50 miles from any PRC office, when viewed in context with the short duration and narrow scope of prohibited activities, is not an unreasonable restraint. The court also held that the business conspiracy claim only required proof of legal malice (acting intentionally, purposefully, and without lawful justification), which was clearly met by the evidence of a secret, coordinated plan to transfer an entire business unit. Finally, the court affirmed that once a court of equity obtains jurisdiction, it may decide related legal claims and award legal remedies, such as punitive and treble damages, to provide complete justice and avoid multiple lawsuits.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for proving a statutory business conspiracy in Virginia, establishing that a plaintiff need only prove legal malice, not that the defendant's primary purpose was to inflict injury. This lowers the evidentiary bar for such claims. The decision also strongly reaffirms the 'clean-up' doctrine in equity, confirming that chancellors can award traditionally legal remedies like statutory treble damages and punitive damages once jurisdiction is properly established, which streamlines litigation involving both equitable and legal claims. The ruling serves as a significant precedent in cases of employee 'lift-outs' or corporate raiding, demonstrating the substantial financial risk, including treble and punitive damages, that employees and their new employers face for orchestrating such departures in a tortious manner.
