Edward Jones Confidentiality Agreement

After reviewing the minutes in this case, the court considers that the auditory evidence presented by Edward Jones should be “trusted” and given greater weight. Id. As noted above, the affidavits of Edward Jones` staff refer to several specific clients of their particular communication with Mr. Clyburn. The affidavits clearly support the fact that Mr. Clyburn contacted clients “to invite, encourage or ask them to move from Edward Jones to Ameriprise or open a new account” at Ameriprise, which is contrary to the agreement. Agreement 15; See also Adrian N. Baker – Co. v.

Demartino, 733 S.W.2d 14, 17-18 (Mo. App. 1987) (confirms the Court`s decision that the application violated an employment contract in which the complainant contacted former clients and told them that he was linked to another insurance agency, that he wished to do business with them and that he wished to do business with them in the future). While Mr. Clyburn may be able to provide evidence that contradicts the concrete factual assertions in Edward Jones` affidavits and statements, that evidence is not currently brought to justice. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, the Tribunal concludes that Edward Jones clearly demonstrated a likelihood of success in the merits of his breach of contract. See z.B., J.P. Morgan Sec., LLC v. Weiss, No.

1:19-cv-4163, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198057 (Rejection of the defendant`s hearsay challenge in response to a request for a referral, and the assumption that the applicant`s evidence was “sufficient to support a successful breach of contract on the basis of non-claim,” although the defendant refused to ask the applicant`s clients). In a recently closed case, the Western District of Virginia found favour with the applicant and granted an application for omission asking the defendant`s former employee to recruit clients in violation of a non-invitation agreement. The Tribunal found that the employer was successful in the underlying offence case and could suffer irreparable harm without any request for omission. Finally, the Tribunal found that the balance of actions and public interest factors favoured the granting of omission assistance, edward Jones having “a significant interest in protecting his clients from distraction” and “the public has an interest in protecting the legitimate expectations of the parties.” The court also indicated that granting the injunction, is not prevented from transferring their accounts and working with the broker of their choice or preventing Clyburn from continuing to work for Ameriprise. Instead, the injunction would only require him not to solicit Edward Jones` clients. After the court determined that the factors had been weighed in favour of the complainant, Edward Jones filed an application for an injunction asking Clyburn to recruit clients of Edward Jones in violation of the non-invitation agreement. Kerr`s decision does not address a company`s ability to demand monetary policy damages and clearly reflects the facts of the case. However, their conclusion – that RRs are required to inform customers of a change of employment – shows that companies must prove that they are in fact charged or that they have committed other misconduct as a precondition for the prosecution.