Let me get this straight, "Big Baby" Elliott fires some sales employees and STJ scoops them up quickly, and then "Big Baby" cries during the 09 Q4 earnings call, then BSX withdraws from the US ICD market anyways since their ICDs didn't have the proper FDA approvals, and now "Big Baby" is suing STJ and former employees for violating a non-compete agreement? Um, BSX doesn't compete against STJ anymore, BSX withdrew from the US market. Somebody needs to change "Big Baby's" diapers and put some Boudreaux's butt paste in there for his diaper rash.
They can still sue, claiming that the ex-employee is using
BSC confidential or proprietary information. This would
be true with or without a non-compete agreement, and is
often used as a nuisance lawsuit even in cases with
zero validity. Customer lists, pricing, etc. are
considered confidential information, even if everyone
in the industry knows them. Like many legal issues,
trying to get results without a court decision by
Read the article, the employee in question is a resident of California. Non-competes are illegal in California. But we all know that BSX doesn't have a stellar track record when it comes to following the law so they think they can sue California residents for violating non-competes. Like I mentioned before, "Kindergarten Cop" will not listen to "Big Baby" Elliott's cries.
I dont know how BSX non-competes are structured but its not typically as broad as "biotech". Its competing products in the same market and it usually is only a 1 year restriction.
So for example a rep who sells ICDs in the Chicago Market who leaves/is fired. They cant work in the Chicago market selling ICDs for the next year. But they could sell orthopedics, GI, Interventional Rad...etc. And it happens in all functions. Sales, Finance, BD
This is standard in most companies and its something people sign as a condition of employment. It protects the companies from people taking trade secrets, market share or any other sensitive info to competitors. It protects the company and should be enforced.
Too bad these employees are not in California. The non-compete agreements are not valid there -- burden would be on BSC to show that their proprietary information is being used illegally. The simple fact of employment isn't considered adequate to show such.
BSX suing STJ for hiring fired BSX employees 4-Apr-10 01:52 pm Let me get this straight, "Big Baby" Elliott fires some sales employees and STJ scoops them up quickly, and then "Big Baby" cries during the 09 Q4 earnings call, then BSX withdraws from the US ICD market anyways since their ICDs didn't have the proper FDA approvals, and now "Big Baby" is suing STJ and former employees for violating a non-compete agreement? Um, BSX doesn't compete against STJ anymore, BSX withdrew from the US market. Somebody needs to change "Big Baby's" diapers and put some Boudreaux's butt paste in there for his diaper rash.
Or someone should just Kick his Arrogant Ass and Toss him out the Front Door into the Street.
They did not give a hoot when they fired these guys because they were going to take a measly 100 million in sales to STJ. After all this is only 20 days of sales out of 365. But, wait they are loosing sales for probably 30+ days. Because they moved most of the ICD and pacemaker manufacturing to Ireland and management failed to ensure the Ireland operation was compliant. They made a mistake over there failing to follow though in reporting a process change.
This is really a failure to manage, inspire and ensure the organization to be compliant. BSC exited the ICD business while they wait for the outcome of reporting the change that happened about a year ago. BSC is not a competitor any more. BSC should NOT be concerned about the employees they fired because it is against the ethics of the company to try to sustain or grow sales, since executive management wants to head full steam ahead and sink the company. It seems they are wanting to be the organization that takes the top honors for the worst merger deal instead of holding onto the number 2 position in the worst merger deals. Ray needs to focus 100% on plans to satisfy the FDA so they won't just shut the organization down because of failing to follow the rules defined in the CFR. Hopefully, there is low risk it will go to this extreme so we don't loose our investment. Ray needs to respond when the FDA says jump how high sirs and madams? Maybe he should bring some of the manufacturing back to the States where managing the operation to be compliant would be easier than in some foreign land? Is the tax savings possibly wage saving they get by manufacturing offshore going to offset the loss of revenue and market share from this snafu?
Oh My Gosh! Now you've done it. LOL
You will surely have the ire of all the dimwitted
pumpers soon swooping down upon thee. You
know they're...vewy...vewy...thenthitive...about such comments.
While LEADERS like MDT, STJ, ABT and JNJ move
onward and upward with a "visionary" philosophy,
BSX and its band of nincompoops at the helm stare
stone-faced and blank-minded into the rear view mirror. LOSERS.
Elliot doesn't have a leg to stand on in this.
When you fire someone, guess what? They'll go work for whom they want. Does he honestly think that when someone in the biotech field gets fired from a company, they aren't going to seek employment in another biotech company? It's their field.
advisor321 you are an idiot. You write absolute idiotic things that are based on your small pecan sized brain. Get a few items straight dim watt bulb.
First, you sign a noncompete and you are fired the contract is enforceable in the state you reside. To be more specific if you are in an "at will" state these contracts are definitely enforceable. If you are in a "right to work" state they usually not enforceable.
Here is the item that many companies have changed to get these contract more teeth. They have re-worded the contract and where they originate such that they are all "at will" locations. Have not read the companies cases that have tried to put teeth in the agreements. In addition, the noncompetes have moved from just one year to multiple years.