Lawsuit & Chapter 7 question

[mymoped]

My husband is being sued by his former company for possibly violating a
non-compete clause. It is possible that we could be sued for into the
millions. Is it possible to file bankruptcy when something like this
happens even with the new bankruptcy reform laws that passed a couple
of years ago?

Thanks!

 

[Howard Goldstein]

: It is possible that we could be sued for into the millions.

Would he consider that a significant sum?

 

[mymoped]

: It is possible that we could be sued for into the millions.

Would he consider that a significant sum?

Yes, for us it definitely is. Originally we were being sued for half a
million dollars and I was worried but not panicked. Now it's close to
9 million and I don't know whether to panic or laugh. Meaning that we
could (not easily) pay back the half a million dollars over time but
the the millions (after everything else we owe out is paid each month)
could take our whole life time. I was just wondering if Ch7 was even
an option anymore with the new reform laws.

 

[Howard Goldstein]

: could take our whole life time. I was just wondering if Ch7 was even
: an option anymore with the new reform laws.
:

It is. Chapter 7 is still available.

 

[duh]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

My husband is being sued by his former company for
[allegedly] violating a non-compete clause [and
plaintiff also indicates the resulting monetary damage
goes well] into the millions. * * * [Is] Ch7 . . . an
option any more with the new reform laws?

It is. Chapter 7 is still available.

Right. And granted, too, that there's lots of stuff about this
lawsuit the OP has not reported - not least including that she has not
made clear whether the sole legal theory of relief is garden variety
breach of contract, that she seems aware of the "anybody can sue
anyone else for anything!" rubric and so does not "know whether to
panic or laugh" and that she also has not addressed whether what she
seems to indicate is (only?) an alleged non-compete agreement
violation is asserted under color of a valid/enforceable such
provision; etc., etc. But query (for Mr. Goldstein): What if
plaintiff's lawsuit alleges and plaintiff probably could prove (even
if perhaps in an amount less than the $9-million presently claimed)
that the OP's husband in a manner not made not judicially redressable
in the parties' jurisdiction maliciously intended to injure plaintiff
or its property (e.g., carefully developed customer lists)? IOW, what
does it mean to say (otherwise correctly) that Chap. 7 is "available"
in such a case without addressing (as the OP's postings so far make it
impossible to address) probable dischargeability or not?

 

[Howard Goldstein]

: maliciously intended to injure

A critical dischargeability issue you'd want to deal with after
answering the general threshhold question, yes?

: or its property (e.g., carefully developed customer lists)? IOW, what
: does it mean to say (otherwise correctly) that Chap. 7 is "available"
: in such a case without addressing (as the OP's postings so far make it
: impossible to address) probable dischargeability or not?

It means amongst other things that I don't have any way to know if the
lady has received the DRA disclosures.

: > I was jut wondering if Ch 7 was even an
: > option any more with the new reform laws?
: >
: > It is. Chapter 7 is still available.
:
: Right. And granted, too

Exactamundo

 

[news.comcast.net]

First of all, NON-compete clauses are not held up in court but MAYBE 25 to
30% of the time..
First the court has to look at the facts of

Is the NON-Compete clause so restrictive in any of the following:

Geographical area, length of time it covers, what is the EXACT type of
compition that the clause refers to.


I worked for an ISP as a manager at one time and had to sign one. The
clause was for 100 miles, and I was Not to work in any capacity for ANY ISP
(including janitorial..ect)
I later left and went to a competitor, since the clause for NON-Compitition
was vauge in nature it would have never been able to stand up in court since
I would have not been able to work at all in my chosen line of work and
would be required to find a totally different line of work.

The courts have to look at the reason for the clause and whether there was a
"significant" financial loss to the company should the clause be broken.

rather than fight it in bankruptcy court I would fight the clause itself.