P hired Ds as brokers in one of its Atlanta, Georgia offices. Ds signed employment agreements that included a non-solicitation covenant providing that the Ds would not, for one year after their termination or resignation from P, solicit those clients within a 100-mile radius of their north Atlanta office whom they serviced or learned about while employed by P. Ds resigned to go to PaineWebber. P sued and sought a temporary restraining order. P discovered that: (1) the phone numbers of many of the P clients whom D had serviced during their employment were now incorrect in P's computer database; (2) immediately after leaving P, the Ds began a swift and methodical effort to solicit, by overnight mailings, the customers with whom they did business while at P; (3) over 30 P customers with whom Ds had dealings while employed by P have contacted P to terminate their brokerage relationship and transfer their accounts to Ds at PaineWebber; and (4) Ds' efforts at solicitation have included financial incentives to P clients such as Paine Webber's agreement to pay all costs of transfer and/or reduced commissions. P initiated arbitration proceedings available to it under the NASD Code, and it requested that the Court restrain Ds from continuing their unlawful solicitations.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.