Maryland Metals, Inc. v. Metzner
282 Md. 31, 1978 Md. LEXIS 349, 382 A.2d 564 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's fiduciary duty of loyalty is not breached by taking mere preparatory steps to compete with an employer prior to termination, provided the employee does not engage in fraudulent, unfair, or wrongful acts such as soliciting customers, misappropriating trade secrets, or usurping a corporate opportunity.
Facts:
- Sidney Metzner and George Sellers were high-level managerial employees at Maryland Metals, Inc., a scrap metal processing company.
- Metzner and Sellers repeatedly investigated and recommended that Maryland Metals purchase a new type of machine known as a 'shredder,' but the company's president, Robert Kerstein, consistently deferred the decision.
- In November 1973, Metzner and Sellers requested an equity stake in Maryland Metals or proposed forming a new, jointly owned shredder corporation with Kerstein, who refused both options.
- Following Kerstein's refusal, Metzner and Sellers informed him that they would proceed to purchase and operate a shredder on their own if he would not participate with them.
- Between November 1973 and May 1974, while still employed, Metzner and Sellers took several preparatory steps to launch their own competing business: they incorporated a new company, applied for a bank loan, secured an option on land, and executed an agreement to purchase a shredder.
- During this preparatory period, both Metzner and Sellers continued to work diligently and effectively for Maryland Metals, fulfilling all their job responsibilities.
- Metzner and Sellers did not disclose the specific details of their preparations to Maryland Metals.
- Sellers was dismissed in late May 1974, and Metzner resigned shortly thereafter in June 1974.
Procedural Posture:
- Maryland Metals, Inc. filed a bill of complaint against Metzner, Sellers, and their newly formed corporations in the Circuit Court for Washington County, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- The chancellor (trial judge) denied the requested relief and entered an order dismissing Maryland Metals' amended bill of complaint.
- Maryland Metals, as appellant, filed an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).
- Prior to argument in the intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) granted a writ of certiorari to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do high-level managerial employees breach their fiduciary duty of loyalty by secretly taking preparatory steps to form a competing enterprise while still employed, when they continue to perform their duties diligently and do not commit any fraudulent, unfair, or wrongful acts against their employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Levine, J.
No, high-level managerial employees do not breach their fiduciary duty of loyalty under these circumstances. The law recognizes a privilege that allows employees to make arrangements to compete with their employer before their employment ends. This privilege is only defeated if the employee commits a fraudulent, unfair, or wrongful act that goes beyond mere preparation. Here, the actions of Metzner and Sellers—incorporating a business, arranging financing, and securing equipment and land—were purely preparatory. They did not solicit Maryland Metals' customers, lure away its employees, misappropriate confidential information, or usurp a corporate opportunity that the company was actively pursuing. While employees have a duty of loyalty, they are not required to disclose the precise details of their plans to compete, as such a requirement would render the privilege to prepare meaningless. Since Metzner and Sellers continued to perform their jobs diligently and their actions did not harm Maryland Metals during their employment, they did not breach their fiduciary duty.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'preparation to compete' doctrine, creating a safe harbor for employees who plan to start a rival business. It establishes that secrecy alone, without accompanying wrongful conduct, is insufficient to constitute a breach of the duty of loyalty. The ruling emphasizes that the line is crossed only when preparatory acts evolve into active competition or other tortious behavior, such as soliciting customers or misusing trade secrets. For employers, this case serves as a crucial reminder that the most effective way to prevent departing employees from competing is through a contractual non-compete agreement, rather than relying solely on the default fiduciary duty of loyalty.
