Delaware Supreme Court Reaffirms Reluctance to Blue-Pencil Overbroad Restrictive Covenants in Sunder v. Jackson
The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Sunder Energy, LLV v. Jackson, No. 455, 2023, 2024 Del. LEXIS 407 (December 10, 2024) reaffirmed the courts’ limited willingness to modify or “blue-pencil” overbroad restrictive covenants, emphasizing the importance of freedom of contract and the need for carefully drafted agreements. This case arose when Sunder Energy, a solar sales dealer, sought to enforce restrictive covenants against Tyler Jackson, a minority member and former employee who joined a competitor, Solar Pros.
The restrictive covenants prohibited Jackson and his “affiliates” from engaging in door-to-door sales in Sunder’s markets or soliciting Sunder’s employees. The Delaware Court of Chancery found these provisions overbroad and unreasonable. One provision was deemed so expansive that it could theoretically prevent Jackson’s daughter from selling Girl Scout cookies door‑to‑door. Additionally, the noncompete’s duration was indefinite because it depended on Sunder’s discretion to repurchase Jackson’s incentive units. The court concluded that these restrictions exceeded any legitimate business interest Sunder might have.
Sunder argued that the court should blue-pencil the covenants to make them enforceable, as Jackson’s actions would have breached even a narrower restriction. However, the Court of Chancery declined, reasoning that modifying such agreements would incentivize employers to draft overly broad covenants with the expectation that the courts would rewrite them later. The court emphasized that fairness and enforceability must be evaluated based on each covenant’s terms and the circumstances under which they were adopted—not the conduct of the restricted party.
Supreme Court Affirms: No Blue-Penciling Without Fair Bargaining
On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that blue-penciling is a matter of judicial discretion and should be applied sparingly. The Court noted that blue-penciling is typically reserved for cases where there is an equality of bargaining power between parties, such as when restrictive covenants are negotiated in good faith, supported by valuable consideration, or arise from a business sale. In this case, none of those factors were present.
The Court highlighted several key facts undermining Sunder’s position:
- Jackson did not participate in negotiating or discussing the restrictive covenants’ terms.
- The operating agreement was sent to Jackson for electronic signature on New Year’s Eve with instructions to sign before midnight, leaving him no meaningful opportunity to review or seek legal advice.
- Jackson received little to no separate compensation for agreeing to the covenants; instead, he was granted incentive units that he could not freely transfer, and which were later repurchased by Sunder for $0 when he left under “bad leaver” status.
The Delaware Supreme Court rejected Sunder’s request to rewrite the covenants entirely, stating that such relief would contradict Delaware’s strong commitment to freedom of contract. Courts cannot craft entirely new agreements for parties who failed to negotiate reasonable terms themselves.
Implications for Employers: Draft Narrowly Tailored Covenants
The Sunder decision reflects a growing trend in Delaware courts to strike down overbroad restrictive covenants rather than modify them. This approach underscores the importance of narrowly tailoring noncompete and nonsolicitation provisions to protect only legitimate business interests. Employers should ensure these agreements are fair, supported by adequate consideration, and provide sufficient time for review and legal consultation.
The ruling serves as a reminder that courts will not rescue sophisticated parties from their own overly aggressive contractual terms. Instead, businesses must carefully draft enforceable agreements from the outset to avoid reliance on judicial intervention.
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。
Sunder argued that the court should blue-pencil the covenants to make them enforceable, as Jackson’s actions would have breached even a narrower restriction. However, the Court of Chancery declined, reasoning that modifying such agreements would incentivize employers to draft overly broad covenants with the expectation that the courts would rewrite them later. The court emphasized that fairness and enforceability must be evaluated based on each covenant’s terms and the circumstances under which they were adopted—not the conduct of the restricted party.
Supreme Court Affirms: No Blue-Penciling Without Fair Bargaining
On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that blue-penciling is a matter of judicial discretion and should be applied sparingly. The Court noted that blue-penciling is typically reserved for cases where there is an equality of bargaining power between parties, such as when restrictive covenants are negotiated in good faith, supported by valuable consideration, or arise from a business sale. In this case, none of those factors were present.
The Court highlighted several key facts undermining Sunder’s position:
- Jackson did not participate in negotiating or discussing the restrictive covenants’ terms.
- The operating agreement was sent to Jackson for electronic signature on New Year’s Eve with instructions to sign before midnight, leaving him no meaningful opportunity to review or seek legal advice.
- Jackson received little to no separate compensation for agreeing to the covenants; instead, he was granted incentive units that he could not freely transfer, and which were later repurchased by Sunder for $0 when he left under “bad leaver” status.
The Delaware Supreme Court rejected Sunder’s request to rewrite the covenants entirely, stating that such relief would contradict Delaware’s strong commitment to freedom of contract. Courts cannot craft entirely new agreements for parties who failed to negotiate reasonable terms themselves.
Implications for Employers: Draft Narrowly Tailored Covenants
The Sunder decision reflects a growing trend in Delaware courts to strike down overbroad restrictive covenants rather than modify them. This approach underscores the importance of narrowly tailoring noncompete and nonsolicitation provisions to protect only legitimate business interests. Employers should ensure these agreements are fair, supported by adequate consideration, and provide sufficient time for review and legal consultation.
The ruling serves as a reminder that courts will not rescue sophisticated parties from their own overly aggressive contractual terms. Instead, businesses must carefully draft enforceable agreements from the outset to avoid reliance on judicial intervention.
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.
The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Sunder Energy, LLV v. Jackson, No. 455, 2023, 2024 Del. LEXIS 407 (December 10, 2024) reaffirmed the courts’ limited willingness to modify or “blue-pencil” overbroad restrictive covenants, emphasizing the importance of freedom of contract and the need for carefully drafted agreements. This case arose when Sunder Energy, a solar sales dealer, sought to enforce restrictive covenants against Tyler Jackson, a minority member and former employee who joined a competitor, Solar Pros.
The restrictive covenants prohibited Jackson and his “affiliates” from engaging in door-to-door sales in Sunder’s markets or soliciting Sunder’s employees. The Delaware Court of Chancery found these provisions overbroad and unreasonable. One provision was deemed so expansive that it could theoretically prevent Jackson’s daughter from selling Girl Scout cookies door‑to‑door. Additionally, the noncompete’s duration was indefinite because it depended on Sunder’s discretion to repurchase Jackson’s incentive units. The court concluded that these restrictions exceeded any legitimate business interest Sunder might have.
Sunder argued that the court should blue-pencil the covenants to make them enforceable, as Jackson’s actions would have breached even a narrower restriction. However, the Court of Chancery declined, reasoning that modifying such agreements would incentivize employers to draft overly broad covenants with the expectation that the courts would rewrite them later. The court emphasized that fairness and enforceability must be evaluated based on each covenant’s terms and the circumstances under which they were adopted—not the conduct of the restricted party.
Supreme Court Affirms: No Blue-Penciling Without Fair Bargaining
On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that blue-penciling is a matter of judicial discretion and should be applied sparingly. The Court noted that blue-penciling is typically reserved for cases where there is an equality of bargaining power between parties, such as when restrictive covenants are negotiated in good faith, supported by valuable consideration, or arise from a business sale. In this case, none of those factors were present.
The Court highlighted several key facts undermining Sunder’s position:
- Jackson did not participate in negotiating or discussing the restrictive covenants’ terms.
- The operating agreement was sent to Jackson for electronic signature on New Year’s Eve with instructions to sign before midnight, leaving him no meaningful opportunity to review or seek legal advice.
- Jackson received little to no separate compensation for agreeing to the covenants; instead, he was granted incentive units that he could not freely transfer, and which were later repurchased by Sunder for $0 when he left under “bad leaver” status.
The Delaware Supreme Court rejected Sunder’s request to rewrite the covenants entirely, stating that such relief would contradict Delaware’s strong commitment to freedom of contract. Courts cannot craft entirely new agreements for parties who failed to negotiate reasonable terms themselves.
Implications for Employers: Draft Narrowly Tailored Covenants
The Sunder decision reflects a growing trend in Delaware courts to strike down overbroad restrictive covenants rather than modify them. This approach underscores the importance of narrowly tailoring noncompete and nonsolicitation provisions to protect only legitimate business interests. Employers should ensure these agreements are fair, supported by adequate consideration, and provide sufficient time for review and legal consultation.
The ruling serves as a reminder that courts will not rescue sophisticated parties from their own overly aggressive contractual terms. Instead, businesses must carefully draft enforceable agreements from the outset to avoid reliance on judicial intervention.
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。
Sunder argued that the court should blue-pencil the covenants to make them enforceable, as Jackson’s actions would have breached even a narrower restriction. However, the Court of Chancery declined, reasoning that modifying such agreements would incentivize employers to draft overly broad covenants with the expectation that the courts would rewrite them later. The court emphasized that fairness and enforceability must be evaluated based on each covenant’s terms and the circumstances under which they were adopted—not the conduct of the restricted party.
Supreme Court Affirms: No Blue-Penciling Without Fair Bargaining
On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that blue-penciling is a matter of judicial discretion and should be applied sparingly. The Court noted that blue-penciling is typically reserved for cases where there is an equality of bargaining power between parties, such as when restrictive covenants are negotiated in good faith, supported by valuable consideration, or arise from a business sale. In this case, none of those factors were present.
The Court highlighted several key facts undermining Sunder’s position:
- Jackson did not participate in negotiating or discussing the restrictive covenants’ terms.
- The operating agreement was sent to Jackson for electronic signature on New Year’s Eve with instructions to sign before midnight, leaving him no meaningful opportunity to review or seek legal advice.
- Jackson received little to no separate compensation for agreeing to the covenants; instead, he was granted incentive units that he could not freely transfer, and which were later repurchased by Sunder for $0 when he left under “bad leaver” status.
The Delaware Supreme Court rejected Sunder’s request to rewrite the covenants entirely, stating that such relief would contradict Delaware’s strong commitment to freedom of contract. Courts cannot craft entirely new agreements for parties who failed to negotiate reasonable terms themselves.
Implications for Employers: Draft Narrowly Tailored Covenants
The Sunder decision reflects a growing trend in Delaware courts to strike down overbroad restrictive covenants rather than modify them. This approach underscores the importance of narrowly tailoring noncompete and nonsolicitation provisions to protect only legitimate business interests. Employers should ensure these agreements are fair, supported by adequate consideration, and provide sufficient time for review and legal consultation.
The ruling serves as a reminder that courts will not rescue sophisticated parties from their own overly aggressive contractual terms. Instead, businesses must carefully draft enforceable agreements from the outset to avoid reliance on judicial intervention.
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
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
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