Employment in Financial Services

To keep the “fit and proper” authorisation, the concerned persons must ensure that they follow the relevant training.

Regarding the prevention of money laundering, financial institutions must ensure that personnel whose function requires it is aware of the legislation, knows the internal policies, is aware of the internal reporting procedure and receives special continuing education programmes (article 11, §1, Act of 18 September 2017).

At a sectoral level, JC Nos. 310 and 341 provide for an individual right to five days of training per year per full-time equivalent employee.

No uniform training is required by law, except for activities that require certification.

In general, "the employer shall ensure that employees are adapted to their workstation" and "shall ensure that their ability to hold a job is maintained, particularly with regard to changes in jobs, technologies and organizations". This general obligation is imposed on the employer if there is a change in the job description.

In addition, the FMA General Regulation requires all persons mentioned in article 325-24 of the Monetary and Financial Code, including investment service providers, salespersons, managers, and persons responsible for clearing financial instruments, to undergo annual training appropriate to their activity and experience.

Law 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernisation of economic life also provides that in companies employing at least 500 people, or belonging to a group of companies whose parent company has its registered office in France and whose workforce includes at least 500 people, and whose revenue or consolidated revenue is more than €100 million, a training system must be set up for managers and staff most exposed to the risks of corruption and influence peddling.

Decree no. 2022-894 of 15 June 2022 on the conditions governing the exercise of the profession of intermediary in banking operations and payment services introduces a new obligation in terms of continuing training. From now on, all intermediaries in banking operations and payment services carrying out intermediary activities in real estate credit and their staff must update their professional knowledge and skills, as part of their continuing education, “through professional training of sufficient duration adapted to their activities, taking particular account of changes in the applicable legislation or regulations” (article L. 519-11-3 of of the Monetary and Financial Code). Finally, as we have seen, some positions in the financial services industry may require specific training and certification.

Qualification requirements exist for specific roles (eg, traders), and employers must ensure they comply with them by only contracting employees with the required skills, certifications and experience. The expertise of employees providing investment advice, sales representation, and compliance advice must also be continuously maintained and regularly updated.

SFC

Persons engaging in regulated activities are required to continuously update their knowledge and skills through continuous professional training (CPT). The “Guidelines on Continuous Professional Training” published by the SFC provides for the following CPT requirements:

• a minimum of 10 CPT hours a year for licensed representatives and relevant individuals; and
• a minimum of 12 CPT hours a year for responsible officers and executive officers (including 2 CPT hours on topics relating to regulatory compliance).

In addition, an individual should attend at least five CPT hours a year (out of the 10 hours for licensed representatives and relevant individuals and 12 hours for responsible officers and executive officers) on topics directly relevant to the regulated activities for which he or she is licensed at the time the CPT hours are undertaken.

HKMA

The HKMA has implemented the “Enhanced Competency Framework”(ECF) for banking practitioners. While the ECF is not a mandatory regime, banks are strongly encouraged to adopt it as the benchmark for enhancing the level of core competence and ongoing professional development of banking practitioners.

IA

Under the “Guideline on Continuing Professional Development for Licensed Insurance Intermediaries”, licensed insurance intermediaries who are individuals are required to receive training through CPD to preserve their professional competence and standards in providing service to policyholders and potential policyholders.

The minimum number of CPD hours for individual licensees is 15 CPD hours for each assessment period, including a minimum of three compulsory CPD hours on “Ethics or Regulations” courses.

Financial services employees are also required to receive training on anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism. New staff should be required to attend initial training as soon as possible after being hired or appointed. Apart from the initial training, refresher training should be provided regularly to ensure that staff are reminded of their responsibilities and are kept informed of new developments.

Financial services employees may undergo necessary training once they are selected and onboarded.

Financial services sectors categorise employees as specialists and generalists. On one hand, those in charge of specialist roles are deployed in treasury, derivatives trading, IT, forex, risk management, service delivery groups, product roles, legal, etc., while on the other, the generalists are deployed in branches, administrative functions, finance, some areas of treasury, taxation, general management, operations, relationship or sales managing, etc. They should possess differentiated requisite academic qualifications with skill certifications (if any) or obtain competitive scores in recruitment tests.

As such, there are no legal requirements for prior training of employees in the financial services sector. There are various certificate courses, workshops and diplomas by financial institutions and agencies, which are recommended to be attended regularly to stay abreast of industry knowledge and to secure an edge in intra-organisational promotions.

Yes. A CF employee, subject to the Minimum Competency regime, will be required to complete CPD training. Evidence of meeting that CPD requirement is also a factor in determining a person's F&P. RFSPs must maintain records of CPD training provided to CFs to demonstrate compliance with the minimum competency regime.

The 2023 Act also introduces new training obligations for those subject to the Common and Additional Conduct Standards, with firms being required to train those persons on how these obligations apply to them and their new duties of responsibility. Attendance at, or completion of, training in respect of the Conduct Standards should be mandatory and such attendance should be carefully documented with refresher training rolled out periodically.

Employers within the scope of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Acts 2010 - 2021 (including RFSPs) are required to provide annual training to relevant staff and directors on its requirements and the RFSP must have procedures in place to comply with that legislation and associated guidance.

Depending on the RFSP's business, additional mandatory training may be needed annually, for example, on topics such as market abuse.

The designated person for responding to protected disclosures should be trained and competent in the identification and handling of protected disclosures.

The IoM FSA’s “Training and Competence Framework” sets the minimum standards that must be achieved by individuals working in the financial services industry. The framework sets out the IoM FSA’s expectations regarding competency, not only for employees who carry out a Controlled Function (and who are subject to fitness and propriety criteria) but for all staff.

The framework is split into two segments: general training and competence requirements for all staff; and training and competence expectations for Controlled Functions and Other Functions – essentially additional expectations for individuals undertaking or aspiring to undertake certain Controlled Functions or other designated functions.

The IoM FSA also sets requirements concerning continuing professional development (CPD) for different types of regulated entities and staff at different levels. For example, Rule 8.5 of the Rule Book specifies that directors and key persons within a licence holder must undertake a minimum of 25 hours of relevant CPD per year or meet the level prescribed by their professional body (where higher). There are further CPD requirements on individuals who provide investment advice to retail investors.

Even absent a prescribed minimum level of CPD, the IoM FSA believes that ongoing training and CPD for all financial services staff and officers is good practice. Such training and CPD should be relevant to the role of the individual and take account of new developments (ie, changes to tax legislation, new regulatory requirements and new products).

In terms of articles 132, 153-A to 153-X of the FLL, employers must provide employees with training so they can render their services and comply with the duties of their positions, and employees should receive such training under the plans and programmes formulated by mutual agreement of the employer and employees. Nevertheless, as indicated in previous questions, for employees to occupy certain positions, they must meet the requirements, and for brokerage houses proxies must be authorised to exercise their duties under their position within the brokerage houses.  

According to article 117 bis 9 of the general provisions applicable to brokerage houses, general managers are responsible for implementing, maintaining and distributing the continuity plan of the business within the brokerage house. Therefore, the general manager must establish a training programme outlining the actions to be carried out if an operation contingency arises.

On the other hand, the AMIB provides courses and training for interested individuals to obtain the necessary skills and capacity to perform the activities of proxies in brokerage houses, and thereafter, to obtain authorisation from the AMIB and CNBV to act and perform the corresponding duties of the position.  

A Finance Educational Committee has been created by several financial institutions, authorities, and the Bank of Mexico and is presided over by the SHCP. This committee is in charge of, among other things, defining a finance educational policy; preparing a national strategy for financial education and guidelines; and identifying new work areas and proposing new actions and programmes in financial education.

Please see question 4.

Examinations (see question 4) and continuing education requirements apply to certain employees in the capital markets services, financial advice and insurance sectors.

In general, regulated companies (eg, banks, insurance companies or asset managers) are required to set up and maintain an organisation that ensures compliance with applicable financial market laws. Given the organisational measures and depending on the regulatory status of the employing entity and the position and activities of the financial services employee, there are training requirements.

While Swiss financial market regulations do not have an exhaustive list of exact training requirements, FINMA requires, among others, that the highest bodies of supervised companies (eg, executives of board members of banks, securities firms, insurance and reinsurance companies, fund management companies, managers of collective assets or asset managers) can fulfil the requirements of the so-called fit and proper test. These requirements extend to all character-related and professional elements that enable an officeholder to manage a supervised company in compliance with applicable laws. Part of the professional elements are relevant work experience and education. In addition, persons holding key positions (eg, compliance and risk officers and their deputies) are required to demonstrate sufficient know-how because of their work experience and education.

That said, the Swiss financial services and insurance supervisory regulations provide for more concrete training requirements. In particular, client advisers of Swiss and foreign financial service providers (eg, investment advisers) may need to demonstrate that they have sufficient knowledge of the code of conduct rules of the Swiss financial services regulation and the necessary expertise required to perform their activities. In addition, insurance intermediaries registered with FINMA’s insurance intermediary register have to prove that they have undergone sufficient education and have sufficient qualifications. On its website, FINMA has published a list of different educational Swiss and foreign qualifications that it deems to be sufficient.

The DFSA General Rulebook requires authorised entities to ensure that the Senior Executive Officer, Compliance Officers, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer, must complete a minimum of 15 hours of continuing professional development in each calendar year.  This continuing professional development must be relevant to the employee’s role and professional skill and knowledge, and consist of structured activities, such as courses, seminars, lectures, conferences, workshops, web-based seminars or e-learning, which require a commitment of 30 minutes or more.  The employee must also ensure that they maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that these requirements have been met.

The FSRA General Rulebook requires an authorised entity to ensure that its directors and senior managers are fit and proper and its guidance suggests that whether any training has been untaken or is required should be considered.  In addition, an authorised entity should satisfy itself that an employee continues to be competent and capable of performing the role, has kept abreast of market, product, technology, legislative and regulatory developments that are relevant to the role, through training or other means, and is able to apply this knowledge.

The PRA and FCA training and competence regimes set the minimum standards that must be achieved by individuals working in the financial services industry. These regimes aim to ensure that authorised firms have arrangements in place to satisfy themselves that their employees are competent.

All FSMA-authorised firms are required to have adequately trained and competent senior management and employees. The training and competence requirements include:

• Threshold conditions on suitability – All firms must show that persons connected with the firm are fit and proper, taking into account all the circumstances. When assessing the suitability threshold of an employee, the FCA and the PRA will consider:
  • the nature of the regulated activity the firm carries on or is seeking to carry on;
  • the need to ensure that the firm's affairs are conducted soundly and prudently;
  • the need to ensure that the firm's affairs are conducted appropriately, considering especially the interests of consumers and the integrity of the UK financial system; and
  • whether those who manage the firm's affairs have adequate skills and experience and act with probity.

• FCA Principles for Businesses or PRA Fundamental Rules – These rules lay out the parameters of the “fit and proper” standard set for firms in the threshold condition on suitability, and require firms to undertake the following:
  • recruit staff in sufficient numbers;
  • provide employees with appropriate training, with competence assessed continuously;
  • make proper arrangements for employees involved with carrying on regulated activities to achieve, maintain and enhance competence; and
  • train employees to pay due regard to the interests of a firm’s customers and treat them fairly.

• Competent employees rule in chapters 3 and 5 of the Senior Management Arrangement Systems and Controls Sourcebook – This is the main employee competence requirement in the training and competence regime under the FSMA and applies to individuals engaged in a regulated activity in UK-regulated firms. The application of this rule can be complex and dependent upon the firm and the activities it undertakes, but in general, it provides that firms must employ personnel with the skills, knowledge and expertise necessary for the discharge of the responsibilities allocated to them.

• Detailed training and competence requirements in the FCA’s training and competence handbook (TC) – The TC rules are designed to supplement the competent employees rule, especially concerning retail activities carried on by firms. Among others, these rules include the following:
  • rules on assessing and maintaining competence;
  • supervision of employees who have not yet been assessed as competent;
  • appropriate qualifications; and
  • recordkeeping and reporting for firms within its scope, including how a firm assessed its employees as competent, and how it has ensured that its employees remain competent.

All employees in some states, including California and New York, are required to receive periodic sexual harassment training. Additionally, employees may be required to pass certain skills tests before registering with regulators or engage in continuing education programmes (most notably FINRA, see question 4).

There are no specific rules for the financial services sector, except that they cannot have an effect that does not respect the caps for remuneration (see question 7).

Yes, restrictive covenants are possible for financial service employees. However, restrictions on work in other companies in the sector (non-competition) must be paid for less than 24 months. These criteria are not provided for by law, but were constructed by Brazilian courts when adjudicating on this issue.

Three specific clauses are potentially relevant to employees in the financial services sector.

Firstly, regarding the confidentiality clause, employees in the financial services sector are bound to respect professional and banking secrecy.

More specifically, article 25 of Section III of Chapter 4 of Title II of Book 1 of the national collective agreement for financial companies of 22 November 1968, provides that all staff members are bound by professional secrecy within the company and towards third parties. Employees may not knowingly pass on to another company information specific to their employer or previous employer.

Article 24 of Chapter 3 of Title III of the national collective bargaining agreement for bank employees of 10 January 2000 codifies the absolute respect of professional secrecy.

Article 44 of Chapter 2 of Title IV of the national collective bargaining agreement for the financial markets of 11 June 2010 states that the employee must comply specifically with the rules of conduct regarding professional secrecy, both within the company and concerning third parties.

Confidentiality clauses can also be concluded between the employee and his or her employer, to reinforce the obligation of confidentiality.

In principle, a confidentiality clause allows for the protection of certain information exchanged during the contract and can be enforced after the termination of the employment contract if it is not perpetual. In this case, it is quite conceivable to contractualise such an obligation for employees in the financial services sector because of their functions, which by their very nature require discretion.

The law already states that anyone who uses or discloses confidential information obtained in the course of negotiations without authorisation is liable. Case law has addressed the issue of confidentiality clauses by ruling that an employee not executing this clause after his or her departure makes him or her liable for the resulting damage, without the employer having to prove gross negligence. The clause may be accompanied by a pecuniary sanction, which may be altered by the judge if it is lenient or excessive.

This clause in no way imposes a non-compete obligation and, therefore, does not entitle the employee to financial compensation.

In practice, it is complex to ensure compliance with this clause; however, the more specific the clause, the more effective it is.

Secondly, a non-compete clause allows an employer to limit an employee's professional activity at the end of an employment contract to prevent that employee from working for a competing company.

Despite the specificity of the activities of the financial sector, it seems that the common law of noncompetition clauses applies.

Thus, such a clause may be provided for by a collective agreement, in which case it is a conventional non-compete obligation. To be enforceable, the employee must have been informed of the existence of the applicable collective agreement. In this case, article 35 of Chapter I of Title IV of the national collective bargaining agreement for financial markets of 11 June 2010 provides for a non-compete obligation.

The non-compete clause is, in the majority of cases, contractual (ie, present in the employee’s employment contract). To be valid, this clause must meet various cumulative conditions to be compatible with the principle of freedom to work.

It must be essential to the protection of the legitimate interests of the company, limited in time and space, take into account the specificities of the employee's job, and include an obligation for the employer to pay the employee meaningful financial compensation. All these conditions are cumulative, and the employer cannot unilaterally extend the scope of the clause, otherwise it is null and void. Given the specificity of the activity of companies in the financial services sector, the condition of protection of the legitimate interests of the company would be met. However, taking into account the specificities of the employee's job may undermine such a clause if it is proven that his or her training and experience would prevent him or her from finding a job. The company's interest in imposing a noncompete clause must therefore be demonstrated.

The judge may restrict the application of the non-compete clause by limiting its effect in time, space or other terms when it does not allow the employee to engage in an activity consistent with his or her training and experience. However, the scope of application of the clause cannot be reduced by the judge if only the nullity of the clause has been invoked by the employee. If the non-compete clause is not enforced, the employer may take summary proceedings against the former employee who does not respect it, and also against the employee's new employer if they were hired with full knowledge of the facts, or if they continue to be employed after learning of the clause.

The employer may waive the clause if this is explicit and results from an unequivocal will. In the specific case of contractual termination, the employer who wishes to waive the clause must do so no later than the termination date set in the agreement.

Finally, concerning the non-solicitation clause, such a clause can be concluded between two companies through a commercial contract. These companies mutually prohibit each other from hiring their respective employees. Therefore, this clause is distinct from a non-compete clause and does not meet its conditions of validity. However, it must be proportionate to the legitimate interests to be protected given the purpose of the contract.

Post-contractual non-compete obligations will typically only be binding when a severance payment is agreed upon that amounts to at least 50% of the pro-rated annual remuneration that the employee received before the obligation comes into force). It is advisable to regularly review for which roles such arrangements are agreed upon as they can be costly, and a unilateral waiver does not automatically eliminate the obligation to pay compensation, only if sufficient advance notice is given.

In the financial services sector, the severance payment for non-competition covenants is considered variable remuneration and subject to the same regulatory compensation rules (for example, section 5 paragraph 6 sentence 1 IVV, section 6 paragraph 4 No. 2 Investment Firm Remuneration Ordinance). However, severance payments do not have to be factored into the ratio of variable to fixed remuneration according to section 25a paragraph 5 sentences 2 to 5 KWG if, subject to section 74 paragraph 2 of the German Commercial Code, the payments do not exceed the total fixed remuneration originally owed.

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. The rules concerning post-termination restrictive covenants are governed by common law principles in which they will only be enforced if the restriction is necessary for the protection of the employer’s legitimate business interest and is reasonable in scope and duration.

Post-termination non-competes are not enforceable, as they are treated as a restraint of trade. Courts have given prevalence to the livelihood of the employee over the employer’s interests. However, a reasonable non-solicit restriction may be enforceable in India.[1]

Employees in financial services are also bound by post-employment (for both resignation and retirement) obligations.[2] RBI employees[3] who cease to be in service should not accept or undertake “commercial employment”[4] for one year from the date on which they cease to be in service without the prior approval of the concerned authority. For SEBI employees[5], the cooling-off period is also one year. “Commercial employment”[6] broadly includes employment in any company or setting up their own practice without having professional qualifications and relying only on official experience. Such engagement may bestow an unfair advantage upon clients by virtue of the ex-employees’ prior experience at the organisation. The grant of prior approval by the concerned authority is dependent on whether there is any ensuing conflict of interest from such engagement.

No there are no bespoke rules that apply. Post termination restrictions in Ireland are void as being in restraint of trade unless it can be shown that the restrictions are necessary to protect an employer's legitimate proprietary interest and they are proportionate and reasonable in their scope and duration to achieve that protection[i].

[i] Law as of 15 April 2024

The IoM FSA does not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. Post-termination restrictive covenants will be a matter of contract and will typically include non-compete, non-solicitation and non-dealing restrictions. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector. Restraint of trade provisions are, in principle, contrary to public policy as a result of which it is for the employer to justify the length and scope of the restrictive covenant and show that it goes no further than necessary to protect its legitimate business interests. If a restraint is considered to be excessive, the courts will not generally rewrite or modify it to make it enforceable and, therefore, the whole of a defective covenant could fall away or be of no effect.

There are no particular rules or legal provisions concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. Nevertheless, it is common practice to execute termination agreements with officers and general managers whereby non-disclosure, non-compete and non-solicitation provisions are set forth by the parties. The use of non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in termination agreements is only recommended for very specific employees and must be negotiated when the employment is terminated.

Plain non-compete and non-solicitation provisions binding employees after termination are not enforceable under Mexican law, because the Mexican Constitution grants individuals the right to perform any job, industry, commerce or work as long it is legal and not prohibited by a judicial or governmental decision.

Post-employment non-compete obligations, which are treated as an exception, must be agreed upon in connection to specific activities that may be deemed unfair competition, and may be enforced with economic compensation.

The period of enforceability must be proportional to:

• the number of years of employment;
• the level of information and importance of the position;
• the economic compensation; and
• the scope of the non-compete obligations.

Unfair competition and solicitation – either for business, or to induce other individuals to leave the company, while the employment contract between an individual and employer is in effect – may be considered misconduct. This misconduct is a cause of termination without notice for the company, and therefore it is feasible to enforce it.

The terms and conditions must be specifically addressed in writing, within the employment termination agreement, making express reference to the importance of the information, potential competition, activities that may be deemed unfair competition, intellectual property, and commercial advantages. The compensation paid is usually similar to or above the income of the employee while he or she was active with the company. Clawback and damages payments for breach of contract are standard practices.

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for financial services employees.

Singapore law in relation to post-termination restrictive covenants is of general application and not specific to the financial services sector. Such restraints are prima facie void, but may be valid and enforceable if they are reasonable (both in the interests of the parties and the public), and if they go no further than what is necessary to protect a party’s legitimate proprietary interest.

The Singapore Courts have recognised that an employer has legitimate proprietary interests in its trade connections (commonly protected by restraints against the solicitation of clients or customers); the maintenance of a stable, trained workforce (commonly protected by restraints against the poaching of employees); and its confidential information and trade secrets (commonly protected by confidentiality restraints). This is not a closed list.

Non-competition clauses are however relatively more difficult to enforce as compared to other restrictive covenants, and they may not be enforceable at all under Singapore law as it presently stands if an employer’s legitimate proprietary interests are already covered by other restraints. Even then, it may still be possible for the employer to obtain an ex parte interim injunction for non-competition though.

Guidelines on restrictive covenants are also expected to be released in the second half of 2024, which will look to shape norms and provide employers and employees with guidance regarding the inclusion and enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment contracts. 

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector in Switzerland. Rather, general post-contractual non-compete regulations come into play: the parties of an employment contract may agree on a non-compete clause, which must be included in the employment contract in writing to be valid. For the non-compete clause to be relevant, it must be sufficiently limited in terms of time, place and subject matter. Normally, the duration of a post-termination non-compete clause is no more than one year; however, the statutorily permissible duration is three years.

As a prerequisite for a contractual non-compete clause to be binding, access to sensitive data is required. The employee must either have access to customer data or manufacturing or business secrets. However, access alone is not enough. There must also be the possibility of harming the employer using this knowledge.

If a relationship between the customer and the employee or employer is personal (which is, for example, the case for lawyers or doctors), a post-termination non-compete clause is not applicable according to the Federal Supreme Court.

If there is an excessive non-compete clause, this can be restricted by a judge. In practice, most of the time, no restriction of the post-termination non-compete clause is imposed if the employer offers consideration in return for the agreement. The prohibition of competition may become invalid for two reasons. Firstly, the clause can become irrelevant if the employer has no more interest in maintaining the non-compete clause. Secondly, the clause is not effective if the employer has terminated the employment relationship. However, this does not apply if the employee has given the employer a reason to terminate the employment relationship.

Swiss employment law does not provide for any compensation for a post-termination non-compete clause.

The DFSA and FSRA Rulebooks do not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in both free zones to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector.  In addition, whilst the courts in both the DIFC and ADGM will award injunctive relief, there is no similar right in the federal courts.  This means that the enforceability of an injunctive order outside of the geographic scope of the two free zones is uncertain.

The SM&CR does not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in the UK to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector. The only caveat to this is that firms should ensure that such terms do not include any provision that might conflict with the regulatory duties of either the firm or the employee. This will be a rare occurrence in practice for most types of restrictive covenant, but could arise in respect of post-termination contractual obligations that are closely associated with restrictive covenants, namely those relating to confidentiality. As such, firms should ensure that confidentiality clauses in employment contracts or other agreements such as NDAs include appropriate carve-outs.

The enforceability of restrictive covenants varies greatly depending on applicable state law. Many states impose specific requirements or limitations on enforceable covenants.

FINRA-regulated firms must comply with additional regulations:

• FINRA rules prohibit interference with a customer’s choice to follow a former representative during a change in employment where there is no existing dispute with the customer about the account. The FINRA-registered agent must help transfer a customer’s account in the event of such a customer request. Note that this only explicitly affects requests by customers and not solicitation by a representative. A non-solicit provision might be upheld whereas a non-compete might not.

• Broker-dealer firms that are signatories to the Protocol for Broker Recruiting are subject to additional requirements. Under this protocol, a departing employee may be permitted to take certain information regarding clients they serviced while at the firm to a new employer and use that information to solicit clients. Non-signatories are not bound to this protocol and can sue departing brokers for violating the terms of otherwise enforceable covenants.

Non-competes and so-called garden leave provisions are regularly included in termination documents. The enforceability of these covenants vary based on jurisdiction, with courts evaluating provisions based on duration and geographic scope.

New York

New York law disfavours non-compete agreements as a general rule. However, such agreements may be enforceable if the restrictions are reasonable and are intended to protect a legitimate interest. A court can enforce a non-compete only if the covenant:

• is no greater than required to protect an employer’s legitimate interests;
• does not impose undue hardship on the employee;
• does not cause injury to the public; or
• is reasonable in duration and geographic scope.

California

California law does not allow post-employment non-compete or non-solicit agreements except agreements involving the sale or dissolution of a business. California law protects employer confidential information and prohibits current or former employees from using employer confidential information in the solicitation of employees.