Four arguments, four rejections - and an Orwell quote from the bench
An accounting firm’s own paperwork calling a partner an “employee” helped sink its attempt to enforce a non-compete in Delaware.
The Delaware Court of Chancery on October 16, 2026, threw out a restrictive covenant lawsuit brought by the buyers of accounting firm Aprio LLP against a California-based former partner who resigned and started competing.
The backstory starts with a deal. In August 2024, Evolution Parent Holdings - backed by Charlesbank Capital Partners - acquired Aprio’s parent company. Every equity holder had to sign a restrictive covenant agreement barring competition, client solicitation, and use of confidential information for three years. The agreement routed disputes to Delaware courts under Delaware law.
The former partner signed, collected roughly $1 million in consideration, then resigned in October 2025. He launched a new firm, and some Aprio clients began asking to follow him. The buyer sued in Delaware in April 2026.
One problem: the former partner lived, worked, signed, and allegedly breached the agreement entirely in California. California Labor Code Section 925 prohibits employers from forcing California-based employees to agree to litigate out of state as a condition of employment. If the clause violates the statute, the employee can void it.
The buyer tried four arguments. The court rejected every one.
It argued the former partner was a partner, not an employee. Applying the US...
[OSEN=Choi Lee-jung Reporter] As past remarks by singer Yang Hong-won expressing his dislike of infidelity resurface, reactions continue to grow that the recent 'motel infidelity allegations' agai...