restrictive covenant

Subscribe to restrictive covenant via RSS

Some historically more employer-friendly APAC jurisdictions are becoming harder to manage as employee protections expand and procedural requirements tighten. In 2026, the region is broadly politically stable, but economic caution, recent elections, and pro-labor legislative agendas are reshaping employment risk in different ways across key jurisdictions. China is emphasizing employment stability and risk containment; South Korea and Australia are advancing employee-friendly labor agendas; and Japan, Singapore, and Vietnam remain relatively stable politically but are seeing increasingly sophisticated employment regulation. For in-house teams, the core risk is not missing a headline reform, but underestimating how process, consultation, and documentation increasingly determine outcomes.

Below are the developments global employers should have firmly on their radar.

1. Workforce Flexibility Is Narrowing—and Execution Risk Is Rising

Across APAC, worker misclassification and restructuring execution have become standout employment risks. In many markets, the primary exposure is no longer just whether an employer has a legal basis to act, but whether it can show the relationship was properly classified and that any termination, redundancy, or outsourcing decision was implemented through a defensible process.

  • South Korea combines aggressive labor reform with real enforcement risk. Unlawful contracting arrangements and illegal dispatch (e.g., subcontracted workers) have long carried criminal liability under Korean law. The Yellow Envelope Act now allows even lawfully subcontracted workers to unionize and bargain directly with client companies. The new administration has also pledged to close even lawful outsourcing loopholes, raising the stakes for businesses that rely on layered service or contractor models.
  • Australia continues moving toward an employee-protective model. Recent reforms driven by legislation and case law have refocused classification analysis on the real substance of the relationship, while courts and regulators are increasingly attentive to consultation, redeployment, and safety in workforce change exercises.
  • China, Japan, and Vietnam each create execution risk, but in different ways. China and Vietnam apply substance-over-form tests that increase recharacterization risk for outsourcing and contractor models. Japan and China are particularly restrictive on termination, requiring clear legal grounds and close procedural compliance. Vietnam does not recognize at-will employment, so even commercially justified exits require careful implementation.
Continue Reading Asia Pacific in Focus: 2026 Employment Law Shifts Global Employers Can’t Ignore

The FTC rule banning post-employment noncompetes was published in the Federal Register on May 7, which means the rule will take effect on September 4, 2024, unless pending lawsuits to void the rule are successful.

Despite considerable uncertainty around when, or even whether, the rule will apply, employers should prepare now so as not to be caught flatfooted. The first step is to understand the rule’s parameters and potential impact on your business. Our FAQs guide you through the intricacies of the rule and the steps you should take while waiting for the lawsuits challenging the rule to be resolved.

Application of the Rule to Workers

1. Does the rule apply to B2B noncompetes?

No, the FTC rule does not apply to business-to-business (B2B) noncompetes. Instead, existing federal antitrust laws should continue to be considered when evaluating B2B noncompetes.

2. Does the rule apply to all workers?

No, there are limited exceptions. First, the rule does not invalidate existing noncompete agreements (i.e. agreements entered into on or before the effective date of September 4, 2024) with “senior executives.” After that date, new noncompetes with all US employees will be prohibited.

“Senior executive” means a worker who received “total annual compensation” of at least $151,164 in the preceding year (or the equivalent amount when annualized if the worker was employed during only part of the year) and who is in a “policy-making position.”

  • “Total annual compensation” may include salary, commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses, and other nondiscretionary compensation earned during the preceding year, but does not include the cost of, or contributions to, fringe benefit programs.
  • Those in a “policy-making position” may include the President, CEO or equivalent, or others with “policy-making authority,” meaning “final authority to make policy decisions that control significant aspects of a business entity or common enterprise.” In the Supplementary Information to the rule (the FTC’s commentary on the rule), the Commission notes “many executives in what is often called the ‘C-suite’ will likely be senior executives if they are making decisions that have a significant impact on the business, such as important policies that affect most or all of the business. Partners in a business, such as physician partners of an independent physician practice, would also generally qualify as senior executives under the duties prong, assuming the partners have authority to make policy decisions about the business.”

Second, the rule does not apply to workers outside of the United States. See FAQ 11 below.

Continue Reading Thirteen Things You Didn’t Know About the FTC’s Noncompete Ban and Five Steps to Prepare Now in Case it Takes Effect

In late breaking news out of New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has vetoed legislation that would have imposed the most restrictive state-level ban on employee non-competes in the United States. Last June, the New York State Assembly passed S3100, which if signed by Governor Hochul, would have voided any contract restraining anyone from engaging in a…