TL;DR: Non-competes in M&A are a completely different animal from employment non-competes, and practitioners who fail to appreciate the distinction are leaving their clients exposed on both sides of the deal. When a seller agrees not to compete as part of an acquisition, the restriction is not an imposition on a vulnerable employee; it is a negotiated covenant tied directly to the purchase price. The buyer is paying for goodwill, customer relationships, and market position, and the non-compete protects that investment. Courts enforce these provisions far more readily than employment non-competes because the seller received substantial consideration (often millions or billions of dollars) and bargained the terms at arm’s length. Even the FTC’s 2024 rule banning most employment non-competes explicitly carved out non-competes arising from the sale of a business. But “more enforceable” is not “automatically enforceable - scope, duration, geography, and the definition of “competitive activity” still matter enormously, and an overbroad M&A non-compete can be reformed, blue-penciled, or struck entirely.
What Is a Covenant Not to Compete in M&A?
A covenant not to compete in the M&A context is a restrictive covenant in which the seller of a business (and typically the seller’s principals, founders, and key executives) agrees not to engage in a competing business for a specified period following the closing of the acquisition. The covenant is a core component of the purchase agreement and is directly tied to the goodwill component of the purchase price. Without it, a seller could pocket the acquisition proceeds and immediately open a competing business across the street - capturing the very customer relationships and market position the buyer just paid to acquire.
These covenants are structurally and legally distinct from employment non-competes. The seller-side non-compete arises from a commercial transaction between sophisticated parties with roughly equal bargaining power (or at least, with access to counsel and the ability to negotiate terms). The consideration is not continued employment but a substantial purchase price that typically includes an express allocation to goodwill. The restriction protects the buyer’s investment rather than an employer’s competitive position. These differences are legally significant: courts apply a less exacting reasonableness standard to M&A non-competes, and legislatures that have restricted or banned employment non-competes have consistently preserved the enforceability of sale-of-business non-competes.
The typical M&A non-compete restricts the seller from (a) owning, operating, managing, or being employed by a competing business, (b) soliciting the acquired company’s customers, employees, or suppliers, and (c) using or disclosing the acquired company’s confidential information or trade secrets. The scope is defined by three variables: duration (how long the restriction lasts), geography (where the restriction applies), and activity (what the restricted party cannot do). Each variable must be tailored to the specific transaction and the acquired business’s actual market.
Why It Matters
Key Elements of a Well-Drafted Covenant Not to Compete (M&A)
Market Position & Benchmarks
Where Does Your Clause Fall?
Market Data
Sample Language by Position
Buyer-Favorable: “For a period of five (5) years following the Closing Date, Seller and each Key Principal shall not, directly or indirectly, own, manage, operate, control, be employed by, provide consulting services to, participate in, or be connected in any manner with the ownership, management, operation, or control of any business that engages in, or plans to engage in, the development, marketing, sale, or licensing of contract management, contract analytics, or legal workflow software anywhere in the world. The foregoing restriction shall not prohibit the passive ownership of less than two percent (2%) of the outstanding equity securities of any publicly traded company.”
Balanced: “During the Restricted Period, Seller shall not, and shall cause each Key Principal not to, directly or indirectly, engage in, own, manage, or operate a Competitive Business within the Restricted Territory. ‘Competitive Business’ means any business that derives more than fifteen percent (15%) of its annual revenue from the manufacture, distribution, or sale of products substantially similar to the Products as sold by the Company during the twenty-four (24) months prior to the Closing Date. ‘Restricted Period’ means the three (3)-year period following the Closing Date. ‘Restricted Territory’ means the United States and Canada.”
Seller-Favorable: “For a period of two (2) years following the Closing Date, Seller agrees not to directly own or operate a business primarily engaged in the same line of business as conducted by the Company as of the Closing Date within the states listed on Exhibit D. This restriction shall not apply to (a) ownership of less than ten percent (10%) of any publicly traded entity; (b) any business in which Seller held an interest prior to the Closing Date; (c) employment, consulting, or advisory engagements with entities not primarily engaged in the Company’s line of business, even if such entities have a division or product line that competes with the Company; or (d) charitable, educational, or civic activities.”
Example Clause Language
Stock Purchase Agreement: “As a material inducement to Buyer’s willingness to enter into this Agreement and to pay the Purchase Price, and in recognition of the substantial goodwill of the Company for which Buyer is paying, Seller and each of the Key Principals hereby covenant and agree that during the period commencing on the Closing Date and ending on the fifth (5th) anniversary thereof (the ‘Restricted Period’), none of them shall, directly or indirectly, (a) engage in, own (other than passive ownership of not more than three percent (3%) of the outstanding voting securities of any publicly traded company), manage, operate, finance, control, or participate in the ownership, management, operation, financing, or control of, or be employed by, consult with, or render services to, any Competitive Business within the Restricted Territory; (b) solicit, divert, or take away the business or patronage of any customer of the Company as of the Closing Date or during the twelve (12) months preceding the Closing Date; (c) solicit, recruit, hire, or engage any employee of the Company or any person who was an employee of the Company during the six (6) months preceding such solicitation; or (d) interfere with, or attempt to interfere with, the business relationships between the Company and any of its suppliers, vendors, or other business partners.”
Asset Purchase Agreement: “Seller acknowledges that a substantial portion of the Purchase Price is attributable to the goodwill of the Business and that Buyer would not have agreed to pay the Purchase Price without Seller’s agreement to the restrictions set forth in this Section. Accordingly, for a period of four (4) years following the Closing Date, Seller shall not, and shall cause its Affiliates not to, directly or indirectly, anywhere within the Restricted Territory, establish, own, manage, operate, or provide services to any business engaged in the Business as defined herein. Seller acknowledges that the geographic scope and duration of this covenant are reasonable in light of the nature of the Business and the consideration paid hereunder, and that Seller has received independent legal advice regarding the enforceability of this provision.”
Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (LLC): “Each Selling Member covenants that for the Restricted Period, such Selling Member shall not, and shall not permit any entity controlled by such Selling Member to, directly or indirectly: (i) own, operate, or manage a Competitive Business; (ii) serve as an employee, officer, director, consultant, advisor, agent, or representative of a Competitive Business; (iii) solicit or accept business from any Client of the Company; or (iv) recruit, solicit, or hire any Restricted Employee. For purposes of this Section, ‘Competitive Business’ means any person or entity that provides professional services in the fields of [defined field] within [defined geography]. ‘Client of the Company’ means any person or entity to whom the Company provided services during the twenty-four (24) months preceding the Closing Date. ‘Restricted Employee’ means any person who is employed by the Company as of the Closing Date or who was employed by the Company at any time during the twelve (12) months preceding such solicitation.”
Common Contract Types
Negotiation Playbook
Key Drafting Notes
Common Pitfalls
Jurisdiction Notes
United States: Every U.S. state enforces non-competes ancillary to the sale of a business, including California (under the § 16601 exception to its general non-compete prohibition) and states that have recently restricted employment non-competes (Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, Oregon). The FTC’s 2024 non-compete rule explicitly exempts sale-of-business non-competes, though the rule’s enforceability remains subject to ongoing judicial challenges. Reasonableness is the universal standard, but what is “reasonable” varies: Texas courts have upheld 10-year M&A non-competes in certain industries, while New York courts tend to cap enforceability at 5 years absent extraordinary circumstances. Blue-pencil and reformation doctrines vary by state—some jurisdictions (Texas, New York) will reform overbroad restrictions; others (Virginia, Nebraska, historically) will void the entire covenant if any part is overbroad. Delaware, as the governing law for many M&A transactions, generally enforces reasonable M&A non-competes and will apply reformation to narrow overbroad restrictions.
United Kingdom: English law enforces restrictive covenants ancillary to the sale of a business under the doctrine of restraint of trade, applying a reasonableness test that considers whether the restriction goes no further than is reasonably necessary to protect the buyer’s legitimate interest in the acquired goodwill. UK courts are generally more receptive to sale-of-business non-competes than employment restraints, particularly when the consideration is substantial and the parties were advised by counsel. The Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 may also be relevant where the non-compete has the effect of restricting competition in a relevant market. In the context of EU merger control (still applicable to transactions affecting EEA markets), the European Commission’s Notice on Restrictions Directly Related and Necessary to Concentrations provides that non-compete clauses ancillary to a merger are generally justified for up to 3 years when the transfer includes goodwill and know-how, and up to 2 years when it includes goodwill only.
European Union and Other Jurisdictions: EU competition law treats non-competes in M&A as ancillary restraints under the Merger Regulation, with the European Commission’s 2005 Notice establishing presumptive reasonableness for non-competes of up to 3 years (with know-how transfer) or 2 years (goodwill only). National courts in EU member states may apply stricter standards. Germany’s Federal Supreme Court (BGH) evaluates sale-of-business non-competes under § 138 BGB (public policy) and competition law principles, generally enforcing restrictions of 2–5 years. France permits non-competes ancillary to business transfers (cession de fonds de commerce) under general contract law principles, subject to reasonableness in scope, duration, and geography. In Asia-Pacific, Singapore and Hong Kong follow English common law principles and enforce reasonable M&A non-competes. India’s Contract Act § 27 generally prohibits restraints of trade but Indian courts have recognized an exception for restrictions ancillary to the sale of goodwill (§ 27, Exception 1), though the scope of this exception is narrower than in common law jurisdictions. In the Middle East, enforceability varies: the UAE’s commercial companies law permits sale-of-business non-competes of reasonable scope, while Saudi Arabian courts may be reluctant to enforce restrictions that are perceived as limiting an individual’s right to trade.
Related Clauses
This glossary entry is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The enforceability of covenants not to compete in M&A transactions depends on the specific facts, the governing law, the reasonableness of the restriction, and the adequacy of consideration. State laws governing non-competes are evolving rapidly, and the interaction between federal regulatory initiatives (including the FTC rule) and state law adds complexity. Consult qualified legal counsel with M&A and restrictive covenant expertise in the relevant jurisdictions before drafting, negotiating, or attempting to enforce any covenant not to compete.
.avif)
