As most M&A advisors have likely noticed, restrictive covenants, primarily in the form of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements or provisions, are customarily included in M&A transactions.

The principal purpose of including restrictive covenants in an M&A transaction is to safeguard the buyer’s value in the purchased business.

In doing so the buyer is restricting the seller’s ability to compete with the purchased business, for a certain period of time following the closing of the transaction. In doing so, the buyer is looking to ensure that the business that the buyer just acquired does not lose value due to the seller competing with that business post-closing.

Including restrictive covenants in an M&A transaction is especially important where the seller’s principal’s (i.e., owner) participation in the operation of the business has been vital to that business’s success.

It is common practice that a prospective buyer will not agree to acquire a business (whether via an asset purchase or an equity purchase) unless the seller will be legally prohibited from opening a competing business or working for a competitor of the acquired business after the transaction closes. As restrictive covenants have become so conventional in M&A transactions, M&A advisors may lose sight of notion that restrictive covenants can be used as a tool while negotiating the purchase agreement, rather than simply memorializing those restrictions in the purchase agreement using boilerplate language according to legal principles applying to such restrictions the employer-employee context.

Failure by an M&A advisor to recognize distinctions between “default” legal principles that govern restrictive covenants in the employer-employee context and the legal principles that apply restrictive covenants in an M&A transaction could result in potential value being left on the negotiating table after a transaction closes.


Laws Governing Restrictive Covenants in an Employer-Employee Context

In Wisconsin, restrictive covenants within the employer-employee context are governed by Wis. Stat. § 103.465, which provides that a restrictive covenant that imposes an unreasonable restraint is illegal, void, and unenforceable. Wisconsin courts look upon restricting competition with disfavor and “the public policy underlying [Wis. Stat. §103.465] is that Wisconsin law favors the mobility of workers.” Genzyme Corp. v. Bishop, 463 F. Supp. 2d 946 (W.D. Wis. 2006).

With that in mind, a restrictive covenant is enforceable under Wisconsin law only if it satisfies all of the following:

  1. it is necessary for the protection of the principal;
  2. it provides a reasonable time period;
  3. the restriction covers a reasonable territory;
  4. the restriction is not unreasonable or oppressive in nature; and
  5. the restriction is not unreasonable to the general public. Chuck Wagon Catering, Inc. v. Raduege, 88 Wis. 2d 740, 277 N.W.2d 787 (1979).

If any provision of a restrictive covenant is deemed unenforceable under any of the foregoing factors, the entire covenant is typically deemed unenforceable. Within the employer-employee context, it is widely accepted that a reasonable time period for a restrictive covenant is two years, though the reasonableness of both duration and geographic scope will vary based on the facts and circumstances of each case.


Legal Principles Applying to Restrictive Covenants in an M&A Transaction

Due to Wisconsin’s pro-competition predilection, many M&A advisors incorrectly assume that the foregoing (and relatively narrow) laws concerning restrictive covenants also govern non-competition agreements in the M&A context. This is not the case, as non-competition agreements entered into incident to the sale of a business are subject to much less scrutiny.

Courts evaluate restrictive covenants differently depending upon whether such covenants arise from an employer-employee relationship or are incident to the sale of a business.

The test of reasonableness imposed by courts on non-competition agreements entered into incident to the sale of a business is less strict than the test imposed on restrictive covenants in employment contracts due to the difference in the nature of the interests protected by those covenants and agreements.

A non-competition agreement entered into incident to the sale of a business protects the goodwill acquired by the buyer and ensures that the seller (i.e., former owner) does not walk away from the completed transaction with the business’s goodwill and customers, leaving the buyer with a purchase that is merely illusory, as such covenants or agreements are generally a significant part of the consideration for the purchase of the business.

In Reiman Associates, Inc. v. R/A Advertising, Inc., 102 Wis.2d 305, 306 N.W.2d 292 (1981), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that “covenants not to compete incidental to the sale of a business are not subject to exacting scrutiny [concerning the five elements above].”

Accordingly, an appropriately-tailored restrictive covenant or non-competition agreement can provide a buyer with a much longer period of protection from seller competition than what would otherwise be deemed reasonable under the laws applicable to the employer-employee context.


Common recognition that restrictive covenants incidental to the sale of a business must be viewed with less scrutiny than those arising under the traditional employer-employee context creates an opportunity for M&A advisors to add value for their clients during the negotiation process of a transaction.

As less-stringent legal principles apply in the M&A context, advisors are equipped with an additional tool to utilize to negotiate more favorable transaction terms for clients, achieved through leveraging a restrictive covenant’s duration and scope.

M&A advisors may overlook the opportunity to use restrictive covenants as tools for developing other terms of the transaction. This may be attributable to advisors assuming that the enforceable provisions for restrictive covenants, in terms of duration and scope, is fully established, incapable of material departure.

As this post highlights, this is simply not the case, at least not in Wisconsin, and the terms and provisional byproducts of restrictive covenants are just as negotiable as any other part of the transaction.

Equipped with this knowledge, advisors on both sides of the deal have an opportunity to add value for their client by strategically leveraging the minutiae made available by enlarged restrictive covenants as a means of further achieving client goals.

For more information regarding restrictive covenants or questions regarding mergers and acquisitions contact our Gerbers Law Business Attorney Nicholas Burkett at 920-499-5700.

Please note that the general information provided on the Gerbers Law, S.C. blog is merely informative and should not be taken as legal advice. The content of Gerbers Law, S.C. blog is based on the state of the law at the time of its original publication. Legal developments can change quickly. As a result, the content of Gerbers Law, S.C. blog may not remain accurate as laws change over time. Your use of this site, as well as commenting, sending an inquiry, or contact email does not create an attorney-client relationship in any way. We highly recommend that you consult with a licensed attorney before you rely or act on this information.