From Bloomberg: Florida became home to two of the largest U.S. industry conferences over a two-week period, where hundreds including the CEO of Cleveland-Cliffs converged to discuss the outlook for steel and aluminum demand. The general mood: Don't expect record growth witnessed the last couple years, but know that demand is normalizing to pre-pandemic levels.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a Superior Court order in
Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC et al., No. 31 WAP 2019, finding a no-hire provision between competing, sophisticated businesses to be void as a matter of public policy and not enforceable. See previous Troutman Pepper article on the Superior Court s decision and its potential ramifications here. While the Supreme Court reviewed out-of-state and federal case law discussed by the parties on the enforceability of no-poach provisions and noted the federal government s recent efforts to curb no-poach use, it focused its analysis and ruling on the balancing test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Under that test, the Court reasoned that while there was a legitimate interest for the no-hire provision in the first instance, on balance here, the restraint was both overly broad and harmful to the public. Therefore, although the outcome represents a victory for Beemac aft
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The state Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court s
determination, concluding that the no-hire provision at issue is unreasonably in restraint of trade and therefore
unenforceable.
In its April 29, 2021, opinion,
Pittsburgh Logistics
Systems v. Beemac Trucking,?A.3d?, No. 31 WAP 2019, 2021 WL
1676399 (Pa. Apr. 29, 2021), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
weighed in on whether no-hire, or no-poach, provisions
that are ancillary to a services contract between business entities
are enforceable under Pennsylvania law. The court declined to hold
such provisions
per se unenforceable. Its
answer for the clause at issue, however, was a resounding