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 Attorneys
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 Attorneys
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 Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026
Publications
In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip
Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.
June 23, 2026
Event
Jenner & Block Partners to Speak at Council on Governmental Relations Conference
On June 11, Partners Mike Vernick, Katie Wynbrandt, and Betsy Henthorne will speak on a panel at the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) meeting.
June 11, 2026