Page 2 of 2

Post-employment convenant

Posted: June 26th, 2015, 7:41 am
by DominicConnor
katastrofa is wholly wrong when he says these clauses can't be enforced, they can and sometimes are and without more detail it is not possible to know whether it is enforceable or not.Another thing to be clear about...it is not the country that it is signed in that matters.A properly written contract will define a legal jurisdiction, that can be over ridden by local law, but it gets complex then.

Post-employment convenant

Posted: June 28th, 2015, 6:54 pm
by MiloRambaldi
QuoteOriginally posted by: DominicConnorkatastrofa is wholly wrong when he says these clauses can't be enforced, they can and sometimes are and without more detail it is not possible to know whether it is enforceable or not.Another thing to be clear about...it is not the country that it is signed in that matters.A properly written contract will define a legal jurisdiction, that can be over ridden by local law, but it gets complex then.I'm not sure what the "legal jurisdiction" means. Is it as in: "This Agreement is governed by the laws of @the country it was signed in@." or a geographical location where the non-complete clause is specified to apply?

Post-employment convenant

Posted: June 29th, 2015, 9:07 am
by DominicConnor
The trick in this is twofold 1: define "competitors", either by name or business sector.2: Keep looking for other jobs, since without an alternative your negotating posture is weak.Be clear that this is a negotiation and if I were your HH I'd be doing that, I trust yours is ?MiloRambaldi, I am not a lawyer but as you can imagine employment contracts are part of my work.A properly written contract specificies the legal system in which it applies, but by defaul the court will decide what the two parties "meant" when they wrote it.So if you are a German, worknig in a German bank in Germany, that's fine. (this rule does not apply in Sweden wheree the daffy court system just make shit up)The jurisdiction does not have to be the one where the work happens, for instance Russian courts are so corrupt that people walk away from deal rather than have them as jurisdiction.So London handles a lot of contracts where nothing happens in England at all, including a large % of Sharia finance.One trick used by US firms operating outside the US is to make te jurisdiction a mildly corrupt and seriously expensive jurisdiction like NY, even if you'll be working outside the US. This makes defending any case very expensive.Every jurisdiction has different interpretations and restrictions on what is enforceable. For instance EU countries have riles that say if a firm transfers a business to another company, employment is sticky to the business not the company.The "reasonable" rules on how long you can be prevented from working are long and have geographical and as well as business boundaries. The geography thing comes from a time when NY, London, et al were different worlds, now of course most work that a quant may do can be done anywhere, even Frankfurt.

Post-employment convenant

Posted: June 30th, 2015, 1:17 am
by MiloRambaldi
QuoteOriginally posted by: DominicConnorThe trick in this is twofold 1: define "competitors", either by name or business sector.2: Keep looking for other jobs, since without an alternative your negotating posture is weak.Be clear that this is a negotiation and if I were your HH I'd be doing that, I trust yours is ?There is no HH since I applied directly. I already have an offer letter, and from speaking with them it is apparently non-negotiable (it is on the buy-side in case that makes a difference). QuoteMiloRambaldi, I am not a lawyer but as you can imagine employment contracts are part of my work.A properly written contract specificies the legal system in which it applies, but by defaul the court will decide what the two parties "meant" when they wrote it....Since the offer explicitly states "This Agreement is governed by the laws of 'country X'", I assume there is no ambiguity on what legal system applies, or maybe I missed the point. From my own research 'country X' does enforce (sometimes harsh) non-competes. On the other hand, I would hope the fact that they need to pay the base during the enforced non-compete period (according to the agreement) would prevent them from doing so frivolously. From my online Google searches, I have not come across any former employees that had bad experiences with the non-compete (over all of their locations), but obviously that doesn't prove they have not invoked the non-complete before.