Re: Response from Bruce Schwoegler

["A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@attorneyross.com>]

On 15 Apr 2002 at 13:00, Dave Faneuf wrote:

> Bruce's comments about the non-compete got my attention since I also
> worked along with my AFTRA colleagues in getting the legislation
> approved.  I believe Bruce may be mistaken about his assessment that if
> you "bolt" the non-compete still applies.  To the best of my knowledge the
> only non-competes in Massachusetts still in effect are the ones that were
> in effect prior to the law taking effect in Nov 1998.  I looked up the
> wording of the law on the legislative website and I believe it eliminates
> non-competes entirely, perhaps one of the legal eagles could look at it
> and render an opinon,  

Since you provided the wording, I looked at it.  It certainly looks to me like it eliminates all 
non-competes in contracts entered into on or after the effective date of the act.  It also 
provides for recovery of attorneys fees and court costs from anyone who "violates"  the 
section.  It's rather vaguely drafted, but it ought to mean that this means recovery of fees by 
stations and individuals who are sued.

I wouldn't put it past someone to try to find a loophole, but from the cursory reading I gave it, 
I can't find one in the ban itself.  As I said, the attorneys fees provision is badly drafted and 
may provide loopholes.

-- 
A. Joseph Ross, J.D.                           617.367.0468
 15 Court Square, Suite 210                 lawyer@attorneyross.com
Boston, MA 02108-2503           	         http://www.attorneyross.com