Delaware Court Refuses to Enforce or Modify Overbroad Noncompete in Cleveland Integrity Services v. Byers
In Cleveland Integrity Services, LLC v. Byers (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2025), the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to enforce a two-year non-compete agreement that it found to be geographically overbroad and refused to narrow or “blue-pencil” the provision. The decision reinforces Delaware’s increasingly cautious approach to post-employment restrictions, particularly in cases where employers seek to enforce broadly drafted covenants long after a business sale.
The case involved Cleveland Integrity Services, an oil and gas pipeline inspection firm that operates within the United States. Cleveland sought to enforce restrictive covenants signed by two former executives following the 2013 sale of the company. The noncompete barred them from engaging in any competitive business anywhere in North America for up to two years after leaving Cleveland.
Although courts often afford greater leeway to restrictive covenants made in connection with a business sale, the Court found this noncompete excessive. Cleveland’s operations, while involving US-based customers with international assets, are geographically rooted in the United States, and the company does not inspect pipelines abroad. As such, the Court held that Cleveland had no legitimate business interest justifying a restriction across all of North America.
No Judicial Rewriting: Court Declines to Blue-Pencil
Cleveland urged the Court to modify the agreement and enforce a narrower version, arguing that its overbreadth was merely a marginal drafting issue. The Court rejected this invitation. Vice Chancellor Zurn emphasized that Delaware courts will not routinely reform restrictive covenants to rescue employers from aggressive or imprecise drafting. Doing so, the Court explained, would incentivize overreach and introduce unnecessary uncertainty into employment agreements.
Instead, the Court reaffirmed that restrictive covenants must be enforceable as written, and that the burden rests on employers to justify both the scope and duration of such restraints. Because Cleveland had not expanded its business into Canada or Mexico since the 2013 agreement and had no current plans to do so, the Court concluded that the geographic scope of the noncompete exceeded any protectable interest.
Non-Solicit Agreement Enforced Against One Defendant
Although the noncompete failed, the Court upheld a related non-solicitation covenant against former executive Byers. Unlike the noncompete, the non-solicit did not include a geographic scope and was focused on protecting Cleveland’s relationships with its employees, customers, and affiliates. The Court found this provision to be reasonably tailored and supported by legitimate business interests—particularly given Byers’s leadership role and access to confidential information across the parent company and its subsidiaries.
The evidence showed that Byers had used his industry reputation and relationships to solicit Cleveland employees and customers for his competing venture, Byers & Partners. The Court granted a preliminary injunction enforcing the non-solicit for its two-year term, measured from the end of Byers’s employment with Cleveland in 2024.
Key Takeaways for Employers: Tailor Scope and Avoid Overreach
The Byers decision adds to a growing line of Delaware cases—such as Sunder Energy v. Jackson and Kodiak Building Partners v. Adams—that reflect a shift away from routine enforcement of broadly worded restrictive covenants, even in the sale-of-business context. The Court’s refusal to modify the noncompete signals that Delaware law increasingly favors clear, reasonable drafting over post hoc arguments about enforceability.
For employers, particularly those operating across multiple jurisdictions or with international customers, the message is clear: Restrictive covenants must be narrowly crafted to reflect the company’s actual operations and protectable interests. Reliance on judicial modification is a risky strategy that courts are increasingly unwilling to accommodate.
This decision underscores the importance of precise drafting, strategic review of restrictive covenant language, and clear alignment between contractual terms and business realities.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
No Judicial Rewriting: Court Declines to Blue-Pencil
Cleveland urged the Court to modify the agreement and enforce a narrower version, arguing that its overbreadth was merely a marginal drafting issue. The Court rejected this invitation. Vice Chancellor Zurn emphasized that Delaware courts will not routinely reform restrictive covenants to rescue employers from aggressive or imprecise drafting. Doing so, the Court explained, would incentivize overreach and introduce unnecessary uncertainty into employment agreements.
Instead, the Court reaffirmed that restrictive covenants must be enforceable as written, and that the burden rests on employers to justify both the scope and duration of such restraints. Because Cleveland had not expanded its business into Canada or Mexico since the 2013 agreement and had no current plans to do so, the Court concluded that the geographic scope of the noncompete exceeded any protectable interest.
Non-Solicit Agreement Enforced Against One Defendant
Although the noncompete failed, the Court upheld a related non-solicitation covenant against former executive Byers. Unlike the noncompete, the non-solicit did not include a geographic scope and was focused on protecting Cleveland’s relationships with its employees, customers, and affiliates. The Court found this provision to be reasonably tailored and supported by legitimate business interests—particularly given Byers’s leadership role and access to confidential information across the parent company and its subsidiaries.
The evidence showed that Byers had used his industry reputation and relationships to solicit Cleveland employees and customers for his competing venture, Byers & Partners. The Court granted a preliminary injunction enforcing the non-solicit for its two-year term, measured from the end of Byers’s employment with Cleveland in 2024.
Key Takeaways for Employers: Tailor Scope and Avoid Overreach
The Byers decision adds to a growing line of Delaware cases—such as Sunder Energy v. Jackson and Kodiak Building Partners v. Adams—that reflect a shift away from routine enforcement of broadly worded restrictive covenants, even in the sale-of-business context. The Court’s refusal to modify the noncompete signals that Delaware law increasingly favors clear, reasonable drafting over post hoc arguments about enforceability.
For employers, particularly those operating across multiple jurisdictions or with international customers, the message is clear: Restrictive covenants must be narrowly crafted to reflect the company’s actual operations and protectable interests. Reliance on judicial modification is a risky strategy that courts are increasingly unwilling to accommodate.
This decision underscores the importance of precise drafting, strategic review of restrictive covenant language, and clear alignment between contractual terms and business realities.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
In Cleveland Integrity Services, LLC v. Byers (Del. Ch. Feb. 28, 2025), the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to enforce a two-year non-compete agreement that it found to be geographically overbroad and refused to narrow or “blue-pencil” the provision. The decision reinforces Delaware’s increasingly cautious approach to post-employment restrictions, particularly in cases where employers seek to enforce broadly drafted covenants long after a business sale.
The case involved Cleveland Integrity Services, an oil and gas pipeline inspection firm that operates within the United States. Cleveland sought to enforce restrictive covenants signed by two former executives following the 2013 sale of the company. The noncompete barred them from engaging in any competitive business anywhere in North America for up to two years after leaving Cleveland.
Although courts often afford greater leeway to restrictive covenants made in connection with a business sale, the Court found this noncompete excessive. Cleveland’s operations, while involving US-based customers with international assets, are geographically rooted in the United States, and the company does not inspect pipelines abroad. As such, the Court held that Cleveland had no legitimate business interest justifying a restriction across all of North America.
No Judicial Rewriting: Court Declines to Blue-Pencil
Cleveland urged the Court to modify the agreement and enforce a narrower version, arguing that its overbreadth was merely a marginal drafting issue. The Court rejected this invitation. Vice Chancellor Zurn emphasized that Delaware courts will not routinely reform restrictive covenants to rescue employers from aggressive or imprecise drafting. Doing so, the Court explained, would incentivize overreach and introduce unnecessary uncertainty into employment agreements.
Instead, the Court reaffirmed that restrictive covenants must be enforceable as written, and that the burden rests on employers to justify both the scope and duration of such restraints. Because Cleveland had not expanded its business into Canada or Mexico since the 2013 agreement and had no current plans to do so, the Court concluded that the geographic scope of the noncompete exceeded any protectable interest.
Non-Solicit Agreement Enforced Against One Defendant
Although the noncompete failed, the Court upheld a related non-solicitation covenant against former executive Byers. Unlike the noncompete, the non-solicit did not include a geographic scope and was focused on protecting Cleveland’s relationships with its employees, customers, and affiliates. The Court found this provision to be reasonably tailored and supported by legitimate business interests—particularly given Byers’s leadership role and access to confidential information across the parent company and its subsidiaries.
The evidence showed that Byers had used his industry reputation and relationships to solicit Cleveland employees and customers for his competing venture, Byers & Partners. The Court granted a preliminary injunction enforcing the non-solicit for its two-year term, measured from the end of Byers’s employment with Cleveland in 2024.
Key Takeaways for Employers: Tailor Scope and Avoid Overreach
The Byers decision adds to a growing line of Delaware cases—such as Sunder Energy v. Jackson and Kodiak Building Partners v. Adams—that reflect a shift away from routine enforcement of broadly worded restrictive covenants, even in the sale-of-business context. The Court’s refusal to modify the noncompete signals that Delaware law increasingly favors clear, reasonable drafting over post hoc arguments about enforceability.
For employers, particularly those operating across multiple jurisdictions or with international customers, the message is clear: Restrictive covenants must be narrowly crafted to reflect the company’s actual operations and protectable interests. Reliance on judicial modification is a risky strategy that courts are increasingly unwilling to accommodate.
This decision underscores the importance of precise drafting, strategic review of restrictive covenant language, and clear alignment between contractual terms and business realities.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
No Judicial Rewriting: Court Declines to Blue-Pencil
Cleveland urged the Court to modify the agreement and enforce a narrower version, arguing that its overbreadth was merely a marginal drafting issue. The Court rejected this invitation. Vice Chancellor Zurn emphasized that Delaware courts will not routinely reform restrictive covenants to rescue employers from aggressive or imprecise drafting. Doing so, the Court explained, would incentivize overreach and introduce unnecessary uncertainty into employment agreements.
Instead, the Court reaffirmed that restrictive covenants must be enforceable as written, and that the burden rests on employers to justify both the scope and duration of such restraints. Because Cleveland had not expanded its business into Canada or Mexico since the 2013 agreement and had no current plans to do so, the Court concluded that the geographic scope of the noncompete exceeded any protectable interest.
Non-Solicit Agreement Enforced Against One Defendant
Although the noncompete failed, the Court upheld a related non-solicitation covenant against former executive Byers. Unlike the noncompete, the non-solicit did not include a geographic scope and was focused on protecting Cleveland’s relationships with its employees, customers, and affiliates. The Court found this provision to be reasonably tailored and supported by legitimate business interests—particularly given Byers’s leadership role and access to confidential information across the parent company and its subsidiaries.
The evidence showed that Byers had used his industry reputation and relationships to solicit Cleveland employees and customers for his competing venture, Byers & Partners. The Court granted a preliminary injunction enforcing the non-solicit for its two-year term, measured from the end of Byers’s employment with Cleveland in 2024.
Key Takeaways for Employers: Tailor Scope and Avoid Overreach
The Byers decision adds to a growing line of Delaware cases—such as Sunder Energy v. Jackson and Kodiak Building Partners v. Adams—that reflect a shift away from routine enforcement of broadly worded restrictive covenants, even in the sale-of-business context. The Court’s refusal to modify the noncompete signals that Delaware law increasingly favors clear, reasonable drafting over post hoc arguments about enforceability.
For employers, particularly those operating across multiple jurisdictions or with international customers, the message is clear: Restrictive covenants must be narrowly crafted to reflect the company’s actual operations and protectable interests. Reliance on judicial modification is a risky strategy that courts are increasingly unwilling to accommodate.
This decision underscores the importance of precise drafting, strategic review of restrictive covenant language, and clear alignment between contractual terms and business realities.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Partner Terri Mascherin to Speak at Illinois State Bar Association Seminar on Negotiation Ethics
On November 11, Partner Terri Mascherin will join a faculty panel for the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) continuing legal education (CLE) seminar “Negotiation Ethics: Winning Without Selling Your Soul.”
November 11, 2026
Publications
Before You Sign: Key Contract Provisions for Tribes Considering Data Center Developments, ICT
Grace Signorelli-Cassady of Jenner & Block’s Native American Law Practice authored an opinion piece for ICT examining key contract provisions tribes should consider when approached about data center developments.
November 5, 2026
Publications
Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi Quoted on Fintech Investigation Readiness in Law360
Jenner & Block Partners Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi were quoted in a Law360 article examining how crypto and fintech companies are preparing for heightened congressional oversight following the 2026 midterm elections.
November 5, 2026
Publications
Partner Emily Loeb Discusses What the 2026 Midterms Mean for Congressional Oversight in the Financial Times
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block’s Congressional Investigations Practice, was quoted in the Financial Times in an article examining how companies are preparing for congressional oversight as the new Congress takes shape following the 2026 midterm elections.
November 4, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named 2026 Law360 MVPs
Law360 named Jenner & Block Partners Adam Unikowsky, Lindsay Harrison, and Rebekah Goodheart to its 2026 MVPs list.
November 3, 2026
Publications
Congressional Oversight after Trump v. United States, Lawfare
Special Counsel David Manners-Weber authored an article for Lawfare examining how the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States may weaken Congress’s ability to investigate the executive branch.
November 2, 2026