that october first right around there was the closing date of the transaction and the greens were executed the third week of october but were they working for gallagher bassett before they actually saw the agreement for a those considerations generally question was i knew that but here where there are factual underpinnings to that question for example they want to argue the period of time was insufficient to satisfy what courts you consider to be considered for here we really have a case where these are new gallagher bass employees yes there might have been two or three lag between the period of time for which they started working for gallagher bassett and when they ask you to be agreements but if you look at the range of the green and you look at consideration is there something in this record that indicates or even the agreement that your failure to acknowledge the security men with here in the last four digits of yourself here number showing the acceptance means you're no longer a gallagher it's a certain period of months must be in place before consideration is consider act with that money so i developed in response to exactly your points they want to avoid situations where employers could present an employee with an agreement and get them to agree the information gathered bassett had just acquired and paid good money for that allowed them to do their jobs now without the access to information without being able to use that information they would have been able to perform their jobs for gallagher bassett and while there might not be law point to suggest that the access to confidential information can surface consideration in the law is clear that consideration can take the form of any benefit and other states recognizing that have recognized that access to confidential information bassett for example put into place for them to access in organize and use this information they needed access to the histories and the preferences of their clients so they could better serve those clients needs and that's information in the gallery best required in the gal that what happened here after they left really was in a very short period of time to climb one client's completely out the door one plan is half way out the door and that was all as a result of down the fence losing using information that was the day before he signed this is page two sixty five the cell phone records say confirming our confidential discussion of today you may feel comfortable in signing the agreement as presented to you on real process you will not be or a mutual mistake you can't do that and we have uncontested verbal representations uncontested we're going to presentations and what they're doing is highly inappropriate and so in an effort to justify what doesn't matter with the individuals quit or whether they're fired you still have to have continued employment generally for two years or more so they don't become close to that so the backstop parking at the counter asked is this argument about particularly so here were gallagher says they couldn't use the information for their personal purposes so what benefit did it have to them all they were doing their jobs the same jobs they had before this asset purchase took place they were doing the same circumstances to this particular case we have your extreme facts here what's happened and it's it's a gross injustice was done to these individuals and then there's no interest they received a consideration fact mr caleb although he never read to even the proposed modification they let him continue to work there for another three months so i do believe that the restrictive covenants can be upheld and i believe that if they fall that the other accounts all necessarily fall even wholly apart from the pleading deficiencies i think if the restrictive covenants fall the other counts fall in she shares here's the reason why on the trade secrets count in order to have they obtained them or did something improper was that the they breached their post employment contractual obligations again coming back to the employment rate so again they're citing employment remits in order to justify or to try and satisfy co was a bitter bitter dispute involving rival rival companies each heated price directly competitive products and senior executive who engage in very dishonest conduct as recently as damage the plane from start to finish but this is not the cutting edge area of commerce or science and it's to be a gross injustice if they were allowed to backdoor not compete infringe on their liber which is what they're trying to do here only way you can have a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic relations is if there is some sort of unjustified walsall competition and here again they made this clear for the first time in their reply brief on a deal the things that discovery is designed to understand but here in this plan which is a situation there group of employees with questions those questions are voluntarily i assume modification that i have negotiated it is reflected in the body because they didn't do the will i mean if you trying to prove whether there is an agreement or not and they think we can use this information to prove whether there's an agreement they were both oh don't worry