Appeal of Unger v. FFW Corp.

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
An appeal of Unger v. FFW Corp
Citation: Unger v. FFW CORP., 771 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
Facts
As a holding company, FFW Corp owns the bank and the FirstFed. FirstFed offers deposits of non-retail including the brokerage services and annuities while the bank provides loans and deposits to customers. FirstFed employed Unger in 1992 entering the employment contract with the company. This employment contract had the noncompetition clause. Also, according to the contract of employment, Unger was to work for one year subject to automatic renewal for a term of one year unless in a situation of termination. Later, Unger was promoted as the president of FirstFed in 1998 (Unger v. FFW Corp., 771 N.E.2d 1240, para1).
However, Unger’s employment contract expired in 2001 April. The same year during the spring, he sent close to 1500 letters to anybody and everybody that came in his mind by using the phone book, old files, and calendars explaining to them about is termination. Unger went ahead to use the local newspaper to make an advertisement for his new company, Unger Financial Group which he claimed that he offered brokerage services. FFW Corp filed an injunctive relief and damages complainant on 5th September 2001 (Unger v. FFW CORP., 771 N.E.2d 1240, para2). FFW Corp cited the violation of noncompetitive clause and Trade Secret Act OF Indiana, wrongful receiving of compensation by Unger, and damages suffered. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction favoring FFW Corp.

Unger now appeals.
Issue 1: Did the company establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial?
Issue 2: Did the company establish that adequate remedies were not available at law?
Decision: Yes/Yes
Reason:
According to Barnes, the appellate court judge, the testimony of the chief executive officer of the employer company, FFW Corp demonstrated goodwill to establish a protectable interest. The provision and subsequent execution of the noncompetition clause were quite reasonable. The clause only aimed at preventing the employee from participating in a competitive business for one year within a reasonable area. During the termination of the employment, the terms of employment contract were complied with by the employer.
Work cited
Unger v. FFW Corp., 771 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)