When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
balance sheetAssetsFiscal year is October-September. All values US.docx
1. balance sheetAssetsFiscal year is October-September. All
values USD Millions.201720162015Cash & Short Term
Investments2,6912,2631,611Cash Only2,4622,1291,530Short-
Term Investments22913481Cash & Short Term Investments
Growth18.90%40.45%-12.60%Cash & ST Investments / Total
Assets18.73%15.81%12.98%Total Accounts
Receivable870769719Accounts Receivables,
Net870769719Accounts Receivables, Gross880778730Bad
Debt/Doubtful Accounts-10-9-11Accounts Receivable
Growth13.22%6.93%13.95%Accounts Receivable
Turnover25.7227.7226.63Inventories1,3641,3791,306Finished
Goods602609598Raw Materials762770708Other Current
Assets358347334Miscellaneous Current Assets358347334Total
Current Assets5,2834,7583,971Net Property, Plant &
Equipment4,9204,5344,088Property, Plant & Equipment -
Gross11,58410,5739,642Buildings482458412Land &
Improvements474747Machinery &
Equipment2,7312,5372,250Construction in
Progress410271243Other Property, Plant &
Equipment7,9157,2606,691Accumulated
Depreciation6,6656,0405,554Total Investments and
Advances1,0241,496665LT Investment - Affiliate
Companies482355352Other Long-Term
Investments5421,142313Intangible Assets1,9812,2362,096Net
Goodwill1,5391,7201,575Net Other Intangibles441516520Other
Assets363403416Tangible Other Assets363403416Total
Assets14,36614,31312,416Assets - Total -
Growth0.37%15.27%15.47%Asset Turnover1.56--Return On
Average Assets20.11%--Liabilities & Shareholders' EquityAll
values USD Millions.201720162015ST Debt & Current Portion
LT Debt4400-Current Portion of Long Term Debt4400-Accounts
Payable783731684Accounts Payable
Growth7.10%6.78%28.20%Income Tax Payable227368259Other
Current Liabilities3,2083,0482,705Dividends
3. income
statement201720162015Sales/Revenue22,38421,31119,149Sales
Growth 5.03%11.29%16.46%Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) incl.
D&A17,03916,04114,585COGS excluding
D&A15,97215,01113,651Depreciation & Amortization
Expense1,0671,030934Depreciation1,010973884Amortization of
Intangibles585750COGS Growth6.22%9.98%15.57%Gross
Income5,3455,2704,564Gross Income
Growth1.41%15.48%19.39%Gross Profit Margin23.88%--SG&A
Expense1,3931,3611,197Other SG&A1,3931,3611,197SGA
Growth2.40%13.70%20.72%EBIT3,951--Unusual
Expense15932-314Non Operating Income/Expense104-
12647Non-Operating Interest Income127215-Equity in
Affiliates (Pretax)391318250Interest Expense978674Interest
Expense Growth12.75%17.10%6.66%Gross Interest
Expense978677Interest Capitalized--4Pretax
Income4,3184,1993,903Pretax Income
Growth2.83%7.57%23.52%Pretax Margin19.29%--Income
Tax1,4331,3801,144Income Tax - Current
Domestic1,102871951Income Tax - Current
Foreign217219172Income Tax - Deferred
Domestic13537761Income Tax - Deferred Foreign-21-87-
40Consolidated Net Income2,8852,8192,759Minority Interest
Expense012Net Income2,8852,8182,757Net Income
Growth2.38%2.19%33.33%Net Margin12.89%--Net Income
After Extraordinaries2,8852,8182,757Net Income Available to
Common2,8852,8182,757EPS (Basic)1.971.91.82EPS (Basic)
Growth3.68%4.40%34.32%Basic Shares
Outstanding1,4501,4721,496EPS (Diluted)1.971.91.82EPS
(Diluted) Growth4.14%4.02%34.46%Diluted Shares
Outstanding1,4621,4871,513EBITDA5,0184,9404,301EBITDA
Growth1.60%14.86%20.14%EBITDA Margin22.42%--
EBIT3,951--
cash flowOperating ActivitiesFiscal year is October-September.
All values USD Millions.201720162015Net Income before
Extraordinaries2,8852,8192,759Net Income
4. Growth2.34%2.16%33.45%Depreciation, Depletion &
Amortization1,0671,030934Depreciation and
Depletion1,010973884Amortization of Intangible
Assets585750Deferred Taxes & Investment Tax
Credit9526621Deferred Taxes9526621Other Funds38107-
244Funds from Operations4,0854,2223,470Changes in Working
Capital90353279Receivables-97-56-83Inventories14-68-
208Accounts Payable4647138Income Taxes Payable---Other
Accruals---Other Assets/Liabilities126429432Net Operating
Cash Flow4,1744,5753,749Net Operating Cash Flow Growth-
8.76%22.03%516.83%Net Operating Cash Flow /
Sales18.65%21.47%19.58%Investing ActivitiesAll values USD
Millions.201720162015Capital Expenditures-1,519-1,440-
1,304Capital Expenditures (Fixed Assets)-1,519-1,440-
1,304Capital Expenditures Growth-5.49%-10.48%-
12.30%Capital Expenditures / Sales-6.79%-6.76%-6.81%Net
Assets from Acquisitions---645Purchase/Sale of
Investments615-80861Purchase of Investments-674-1,586-
567Sale/Maturity of Investments1,290778628Other Uses---
Other Sources54257Net Investing Cash Flow-850-2,223-
1,881Net Investing Cash Flow Growth61.76%-18.17%-
130.05%Net Investing Cash Flow / Sales-3.80%-10.43%-
9.82%Financing ActivitiesAll values USD
Millions.201720162015Cash Dividends Paid - Total-1,450-
1,178-929Common Dividends-1,450-1,178-929Change in
Capital Stock-1,892-1,835-1,244Repurchase of Common &
Preferred Stk.-2,043-1,996-1,436Sale of Common & Preferred
Stock151161192Proceeds from Stock
Options151161192Issuance/Reduction of Debt,
Net3501,255238Change in Long-Term
Debt3501,255238Issuance of Long-Term
Debt7501,255849Reduction in Long-Term Debt-400--610Other
Funds-10839Other Uses-87-114-94Other Sources78123132Net
Financing Cash Flow-3,002-1,750-1,896Net Financing Cash
Flow Growth-71.52%7.69%-204.14%Net Financing Cash Flow /
Sales-13.41%-8.21%-9.90%Exchange Rate Effect11-4-
28. October 14, 2005, Submitted
January 25, 2006, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en
banc, denied by DCS Sanitation Mgmt. v. Castillo, 2006 U.S.
App. LEXIS 8154 (8th Cir., Apr. 4, 2006)
US Supreme Court certiorari denied by DCS Sanitation
Management, Inc. v. Castillo, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 7161 (U.S.,
Oct. 2, 2006)PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeal from the United
States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant former employer
challenged a decision from the United States District Court for
the District of Nebraska, which denied its motion for a
preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment to
appellee former employees in a case alleging a violation of a
noncompete agreement.
OVERVIEW: As a condition of employment, the employees
each signed employment agreements containing a noncompete
clause. The contract also contained a choice of law provision.
After the employees were hired by another company, the
employer filed an action for breach of contract. The district
court denied the employer injunctive relief, and it granted the
employees summary judgment. Thereafter, the employer sought
review. In affirming, the court determined that, although the
one-year time frame in the agreement had expired, the claim for
money damages was not moot. However, the request for
injunctive relief was moot. Next, Nebraska law applied,
notwithstanding the fact that the agreement provided for the
application of Ohio law. Because the laws of each state with
regard to noncompete agreements were so diverse, the district
court properly found that the application of Ohio law would
violate the public policy of Nebraska. Moreover, Nebraska had
29. a greater material interest in the agreements. Finally, the
agreements were invalid under Nebraska law because they were
overly broad; the employees were prohibited from working for
any cleaning service within 100 miles for one year.
OUTCOME: The decision was affirmed.
CORE TERMS: former employees, noncompete agreements,
cleaning, overly broad, plant, former employer's, fundamental
policy, choice-of-law, materially, moot, choice of law, personal
contact, noncompete, soliciting, preliminary injunction,
summary judgment, sanitation, place of business, substantial
relationship, injunctive relief, particular issue, unenforceable,
injunction, correctly, customer, covenant, miles, staffing,
enjoin, crew
LexisNexis® Headnotes
Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Mootness > Real Controversy
Requirement
Civil Procedure > Remedies > Injunctions > Preliminary &
Temporary Injunctions
Labor & Employment Law > Employment Relationships >
Employment Contracts > Conditions & Terms > Trade Secrets &
Unfair Competition > Noncompetition & Nondisclosure
Agreements
HN1
Under Nebraska law, when a noncompete agreement's time
period runs out, an appeal from the denial of a preliminary
injunction is moot. Although an appeal from a denial of
injunctive relief may become moot by the passage of time, a
claim for damages remains viable.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Choice
of Law > General Overview
30. Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > De Novo
Review
HN2
A district court sitting in diversity jurisdiction applies the
conflict of law rules for the state in which it sits. An appellate
court reviews de novo the district court's choice-of-law
determination.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Choice
of Law > General Overview
Contracts Law > Contract Conditions & Provisions > Forum
Selection Clauses
HN3
Nebraska courts generally give effect to the parties' choice of
law. The law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their
contractual rights and duties will be applied if the particular
issue is one which the parties could have resolved by an explicit
provision in their agreement directed to that issue. The parties'
contractual choice of law will apply unless (1) the chosen state
has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction
and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties' choice, or
(2) application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary
to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater
interest than the chosen state in the determination of the
particular issue and which would be the state of the applicable
law in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties.
The second part applies only when the first part does not
govern.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Choice
of Law > General Overview
HN4
Under the second part of the test for choice of law cases,
application of the chosen law is precluded if application of the
31. law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental
policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the
chosen state when certain factors are applied.
Labor & Employment Law > Employment Relationships >
Employment Contracts > Conditions & Terms > Trade Secrets &
Unfair Competition > Noncompetition & Nondisclosure
Agreements
HN5
Nebraska and Ohio courts have materially different approaches
to the reformation of unreasonable noncompete agreements. In
Nebraska, if a court determines a noncompete agreement is
unreasonable, the court will not reform the noncompete
agreement in order to make it enforceable. Contrary to the
Nebraska courts' approach, Ohio courts are empowered to
reform overly broad or unreasonable noncompete agreements to
make them reasonable. Because Nebraska courts expressly have
rejected judicial reformation of noncompete agreements,
application of Ohio law would violate a fundamental policy of
Nebraska law.
Civil Procedure > Federal & State Interrelationships > Choice
of Law > General Overview
HN6
In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties, the
contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of to
determine the law applicable to an issue include: (a) the place
of contracting, (b) the place of negotiation of the contract, (c)
the place of performance ,(d) the location of the subject matter
of the contract, and (e) the domicile, residence, nationality,
place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.
These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative
importance with respect to the particular issue.
32. Labor & Employment Law > Employment Relationships >
Employment Contracts > Conditions & Terms > Trade Secrets &
Unfair Competition > Noncompetition & Nondisclosure
Agreements
HN7
Pursuant to Nebraska law, a noncompete agreement is valid if it
is (1) not injurious to the public, (2) not greater than is
reasonably necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate
interest, and (3) not unduly harsh and oppressive on the
employee. An employer has a legitimate business interest in
protection against a former employee's competition by improper
and unfair means, but is not entitled to protection against
ordinary competition from a former employee. A noncompete
agreement may be valid only if it restricts the former employee
from working for or soliciting the former employer's clients or
accounts with whom the former employee actually did business
and has personal contact.
Available Briefs and Other Documents Related to this Case:U.S.
Circuit Court Brief(s)COUNSEL: For DCS SANITATION
MANAGEMENT, Inc., Plaintiff - Appellant: Michael P.
Schmiedt, CRARY & HUFF, South Sioux City, NE; Daniel L.
Hartnett, CRARY & HUFF, Sioux City, IA; James E. McCarthy,
III, KATZ & TELLER, Cincinnati, OH.
For ELOY CASTILLO, EFREN GEORGE CASTILLO,
ADOLFO MARTINEZ, Appellees: James Conrad Zalewski,
DEMARS & GORDON, Lincoln, NE.
JUDGES: Before RILEY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and COLLOTON,
Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Riley
OPINION
[*894] RILEY, Circuit Judge.
33. DCS Sanitation Management, Inc. (DCS) sued three of its
former employees, Eloy Castillo, Efren George Castillo, and
Adolfo Martinez (collectively, former employees), alleging the
former employees breached noncompete agreements. DCS
appeals the district court's 1 denial of DCS's motion for a
preliminary injunction and grant of summary judgment in favor
of the former employees. We affirm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District
Judge for the District of Nebraska.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**2] I. BACKGROUND
DCS, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Ohio, cleans food processing plants in thirteen
states, including Nebraska. DCS's corporate office in Ohio (1)
formulates processes and procedures to improve cleaning crew
efficiency, (2) designs sanitation and safety programs for all
cleaning crews, (3) makes staffing decisions for all cleaning
crews, and (4) makes human resource policies and decisions for
all DCS employees.
The former employees worked for DCS as on-site managers at
the Tyson Foods plant in Dakota City, Nebraska (Tyson plant).
The former employees (1) had access to DCS's staffing,
sanitation, and safety programs, including the allocation and
monitoring of proper chemical dilutions; (2) were responsible
for enforcing regulatory safety requirements and satisfying third
party audit requirements; (3) were familiar with staffing
requirements for cleaning the Tyson plant; and (4) had
knowledge of the Tyson plant's key contacts and business
requirements.
As a condition of employment with DCS, each of the former
employees signed identical employment agreements
(Agreements) with DCS. The Agreements contained the
following noncompete provision: [**3]
34. NONCOMPETITION AFTER TERMINATION: For a period of
one (1) year following the date of termination of employment
for any reason, I will not directly or indirectly engage in, or in
any manner be concerned with or employed by any person, firm,
or corporation in competition with [DCS] or engaged in
providing contract cleaning services within a radius of one-
hundred (100) miles of any customer of [DCS] or with any
customer or client of [DCS] or any entity or enterprise having
business dealings with [DCS] which is then providing its own
cleaning services in-house or which requests my assistance or
knowledge of contract cleaning services to provide its own
cleaning services in-house. In the event of violation of this
covenant, [DCS], in addition to any other rights and remedies
available at law or otherwise, is entitled to an injunction to be
issued by a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining and
restraining employee from committing any violation of this
provision and employee hereby consents to the issuance of the
injunction.
The Agreements also contained a choice-of-law provision:
"APPLICABLE LAW: This Agreement shall be subject to and
interpreted in [**4] accordance with the laws of Ohio."
In June 2003, after DCS cleaned the processing side of the
Tyson plant for eighteen years, the Tyson plant solicited bids
from competing cleaning companies. As a result of the bidding
process, on September 18, 2003, the Tyson plant selected
Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. (Packers) for the cleaning
contract. Packers [*895] hired all of DCS's employees,
including the former employees, and on November 8, 2003,
Packers started cleaning the Tyson plant.
On May 14, 2004, DCS sued the former employees, alleging (1)
breach of the noncompete agreements, (2) a "substantial
probability" the former employees would disclose DCS's trade
secrets and confidential information, and (3) breach of contract.
DCS sought (1) to enjoin the former employees in accordance
with the noncompete agreements, (2) to enjoin the former
employees from disclosing DCS's trade secrets and confidential
35. information, and (3) money damages.
DCS moved for a preliminary injunction, and the former
employees moved for summary judgment. The district court
denied DCS's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted
summary judgment in favor of the former employees,
concluding Nebraska has a materially [**5] greater interest in
the noncompete agreements at issue, and application of Ohio
law would violate a fundamental policy of Nebraska law. The
district court thus applied Nebraska law to determine the
validity of the noncompete agreements and concluded the
noncompete agreements were overbroad and, therefore,
unenforceable.
DCS appeals the district court's ruling, urging this court to
reverse the district court's entry of summary judgment and
denial of a preliminary injunction, and to remand with
instructions to enjoin the former employees under Ohio law.
DCS argues reversal and remand is warranted here, because (1)
the district court erred in applying Nebraska law instead of
Ohio law, (2) the noncompete agreements are enforceable under
Ohio law, and (3) the district court abused its discretion in
denying injunctive relief for the period of the covenant from the
date of the court's order. In response, the former employees
contend (1) the appeal is moot, (2) the district court correctly
applied Nebraska law, (3) the noncompete agreements are
overly broad and unenforceable, and (4) the noncompete
agreements are contracts of adhesion.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Mootness
The former [**6] employees contend this appeal is moot,
because the one-year time frame of the noncompete agreements
has expired. See Agrigenetics, Inc. v. Rose, 62 F.3d 268, 270-71
(8th Cir. 1995) (holding, HN1under Nebraska law, when a
noncompete agreement's time period runs out, an appeal from
the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot). Although an
appeal from a denial of injunctive relief may become moot by
the passage of time, a claim for damages remains
36. viable. See Curtis Indus., Inc. v. Livingston, 30 F.3d 96, 97 (8th
Cir. 1994). Because DCS sought money damages in addition to
injunctive relief, this appeal is not moot.
B. Choice-of-Law Determination
DCS argues the district court erred when it evaluated DCS's
claim under Nebraska law rather than Ohio law, because the
Agreements specify Ohio law governs. HN2A district court
sitting in diversity jurisdiction applies the conflict of law rules
for the state in which it sits. Inacom Corp. v. Sears, Roebuck &
Co., 254 F.3d 683, 687 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Klaxon Co. v.
Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S. Ct. 1020, 85 L.
Ed. 1477 (1941)). Thus, we apply Nebraska's conflict of
law [**7] rules and review de novo the district court's choice-
of-law determination. Id.
In deciding choice-of-law questions, Nebraska follows the
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws
(Restatement). Id.HN3Nebraska courts generally give effect to
the parties' choice of law. Vanice v. Oehm, 247 Neb. 298, 526
N.W.2d 648, 651 [*896] (Neb. 1995); Restatement § 187(1).
Restatement section 187(1) provides "the law of the state
chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and
duties will be applied if the particular issue is one which the
parties could have resolved by an explicit provision in their
agreement directed to that issue." Restatement § 187(1). Section
187(2) provides the parties' contractual choice of law will apply
unless (1) "the chosen state has no substantial relationship to
the parties or the transaction and there is no other reasonable
basis for the parties' choice," or (2) "application of the law of
the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a
state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen
state in the determination of the particular issue and which . . .
would be the state of the applicable law in the absence
of [**8] an effective choice of law by the parties." Restatement
§ 187(2)(a), (b).
The district court applied Restatement section 187(2) without
analyzing whether section 187(1) or section 187(2) applies in
37. this case. Section 187(2) applies only when section 187(1) does
not govern. See Restatement § 187, comment d. Section 187(1)
is inapplicable in this case, because, under Nebraska law, the
parties could not have resolved to apply Ohio law even with an
explicit provision. See CAE Vanguard, Inc. v. Newman, 246
Neb. 334, 518 N.W.2d 652, 656 (Neb. 1994) (holding "the
provision of the agreement which states that a court may reform
the covenant is of no effect. Private parties may not confer upon
the court powers which it does not possess."); see also Baxter
Intern., Inc. v. Morris, 976 F.2d 1189, 1196 (8th Cir. 1992).
The first condition under section 187(2), whether "the chosen
state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the
transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties'
choice," is met in this case. Restatement § 187(2)(a). Nebraska
has a substantial relationship to the parties and the transaction,
because the former [**9] employees and DCS entered into the
Agreements in Nebraska, the services at issue were to be
performed in Nebraska, the former employees reside in
Nebraska, the prohibition of the noncompete clause directly and
materially affects employment in Nebraska, and DCS does
business in Nebraska. Nebraska clearly possesses a direct and
substantial interest in the employment of its citizens. The only
relationship between Ohio and the parties is the location of
DCS's corporate headquarters and principal place of business in
Ohio. The Agreements were not negotiated, entered into, or
performed in Ohio. Under these circumstances, the district court
properly concluded Ohio has no substantial relationship to the
parties or the transaction, and Nebraska has a greater material
interest in the Agreements. See Powell v. Am. Charter Fed. Sav.
& Loan Ass'n, 245 Neb. 551, 514 N.W.2d 326, 332 (Neb.
1994) (deciding the state with the most significant relationship
to the transaction and the parties is the state where the parties
contracted, negotiated, and resided; where the subject matter
was located; and where performance was to take place).
The second condition also is satisfied. HN4Under
section [**10] 187(2)(b), application of the chosen law is
38. precluded if "application of the law of the chosen state would
be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a
materially greater interest than the chosen state" when the
factors articulated in section 188 2 are applied.
Restatement [*897] § 187(2)(b). HN5Nebraska and Ohio
courts have materially different approaches to the reformation
of unreasonable noncompete agreements. In Nebraska, if a court
determines a noncompete agreement is unreasonable, the court
will not reform the noncompete agreement in order to make it
enforceable. H & R Block Tax Servs., Inc., v. Circle A Enters.,
Inc., 269 Neb. 411, 693 N.W.2d 548, 552 (Neb. 2005). Contrary
to the Nebraska courts' approach, Ohio courts are empowered to
reform overly broad or unreasonable noncompete agreements to
make them reasonable. Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St. 2d
21, 325 N.E.2d 544, 547 (Ohio 1975). The district court
correctly recognized that because Nebraska courts expressly
have rejected judicial reformation of noncompete agreements,
application of Ohio law would violate a fundamental policy of
Nebraska law.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 Section 188 provides in pertinent part:
HN6(2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the
parties (see § 187), the contacts to be taken into account in
applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to
an issue include:
(a) the place of contracting,
(b) the place of negotiation of the contract,
(c) the place of performance,
(d) the location of the subject matter of the contract, and
(e) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation
and place of business of the parties.
These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative
importance with respect to the particular issue.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
39. [**11] Because Nebraska has a greater material interest in the
Agreements and application of Ohio law would violate a
fundamental policy of Nebraska law, we hold the district court
correctly applied Nebraska law to the question of the validity
and enforceability of the noncompete agreements. See First
Nat'l Bank v. Daggett, 242 Neb. 734, 497 N.W.2d 358, 363
(Neb. 1993) (disregarding choice-of-law provision because the
chosen state had no contacts with the transaction and the
parties, and application of the chosen state's law would offend a
strong public policy in the forum state). See also Rain & Hail
Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Casper, 902 F.2d 699, 700-01 (8th Cir.
1990) (applying Nebraska law to an employment agreement's
noncompete clause choosing the application of Iowa law, which
allowed modification of overly restrictive noncompete
provisions, and affirming conclusion "Iowa law would be
contrary to a fundamental policy of Nebraska").
C. Validity of the Noncompete Agreements
Having concluded Nebraska law applies, we now turn to
whether the noncompete agreements are valid under Nebraska
law. HN7Pursuant to Nebraska law, a noncompete agreement is
valid if [**12] it is (1) "not injurious to the public," (2) "not
greater than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer in
some legitimate interest," and (3) "not unduly harsh and
oppressive on the employee." Prof'l Bus. Servs. Co. v. Rosno,
268 Neb. 99, 680 N.W.2d 176, 184 (Neb. 2004) (quotation
omitted). "An employer has a legitimate business interest in
protection against a former employee's competition by improper
and unfair means, but is not entitled to protection against
ordinary competition from a former employee." Id. at 185. A
noncompete agreement "may be valid only if it restricts the
former employee from working for or soliciting the former
employer's clients or accounts with whom the former employee
actually did business and has personal contact." Polly v. Ray D.
Hilderman & Co., 225 Neb. 662, 407 N.W.2d 751, 756 (Neb.
1987).
We conclude the district court properly held the noncompete
40. agreements were overbroad and unenforceable. The district
court recognized the noncompete agreements prohibit the
former employees from, directly or indirectly, being concerned
in any manner with any company in competition with DCS, and
from providing [**13] [*898] contract cleaning services
within one hundred miles of any entity or enterprise "having
business dealings" with DCS, including attorneys, accountants,
delivery services and the like. The breadth of the noncompete
agreements effectively put the former employees out of the
cleaning business within an extensive region. We hold the
district court did not err in concluding Nebraska courts would
not enforce such overly broad noncompete
agreements. See Rosno, 680 N.W.2d at 186-87 (holding
noncompete agreement was overly broad where the agreement
prohibited the former employee from soliciting or contacting
any of the former employer's clients and where the former
employer could not establish the former employee had done
business with or had substantial personal contact with all of the
former employer's clients); Mertz v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co.,
261 Neb. 704, 625 N.W.2d 197, 205 (Neb. 2001) (holding
noncompete agreement was overly broad where it was not
limited to clients with whom the former employee actually did
business or personally contacted); Moore v. Eggers Consulting
Co., Inc., 252 Neb. 396, 562 N.W.2d 534, 540 (Neb.
1997) (holding [**14] noncompete agreement was overly broad
where it prohibited soliciting or accepting business
opportunities with any client of the former employer with whom
the former employee worked or had knowledge of, and where
the agreement contained an overly broad geographical
restriction); Whitten v. Malcolm, 249 Neb. 48, 541 N.W.2d 45,
48 (Neb. 1995) (holding noncompete agreement was overly
broad where it prohibited practicing dentistry within geographic
location and was not limited to clients with whom the former
employee did business and had personal contact and was not
even limited to the former employer's existing customer
base); Vlasin v. Len Johnson & Co., Inc., 235 Neb. 450, 455
41. N.W.2d 772, 776 (Neb. 1990) (holding noncompete agreement
was overly broad where it prohibited the former employee from
entering into insurance business within fifty miles and was not
limited to the former employer's clients with whom the former
employee did business and had personal contact); Polly, 407
N.W.2d at 756 (holding noncompete agreement was overly
broad where it prohibited soliciting or working for the former
employer's clients with whom the former employee [**15] did
not work and did not even know).
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, we affirm the well reasoned judgment of the district
court.
balance sheetAssetsESOP Debt Guarantee201520162017 Cash &
Short Term Investments3.3M60.3M75.3MCash
Only2.1M57.1M63MShort-Term
Investments1.2M3.2M12.3MCash & Short Term Investments
Growth-92.03%1727.27%24.88%Cash & ST Investments / Total
Assets0.09%1.36%1.59% Total Accounts
Receivable88.4M101M118.8MAccounts Receivables,
Net78.4M92.7M92.6MAccounts Receivables,
Gross82.3M98.5M94.2MBad Debt/Doubtful
Accounts(3.9M)(5.8M)(1.6M)Other
Receivables10M8.3M26.2MAccounts Receivable
Growth13.92%14.25%17.62%Accounts Receivable
Turnover29.528.9326.14Inventories37.1M44.8M48.2MFinished
Goods30.4M34.8M35.4MWork in Progress---Raw
Materials6.7M10M12.8MProgress Payments & Other---Other
Current Assets35.6M39M44.8MMiscellaneous Current
Assets35.6M39M44.8MTotal Current
Assets164.4M245.1M287.1M201520162017Net Property, Plant
& Equipment3.28B3.83B3.97BProperty, Plant & Equipment -
Gross3.95B4.6B4.78BBuildings2.69B3.15B3.2BLand &
Improvements---Computer Software and Equipment---Other
42. Property, Plant & Equipment---Accumulated
Depreciation674.1M771.7M811MTotal Investments and
Advances34.5M61.1M96.3MOther Long-Term
Investments2.2M21.6M43.3MLong-Term Note
Receivable7.3M7.7M6.8MIntangible
Assets248.1M258.1M275.7MNet
Goodwill179.4M180M177.1MNet Other
Intangibles68.7M78.1M98.6MOther
Assets1.1M2.3M50.5MTangible Other
Assets1.1M2.3M50.5M Total Assets3.82B4.43B4.74BAssets -
Total - Growth11.28%15.89%6.91%Liabilities & Shareholders'
Equity201520162017ST Debt & Current Portion LT
Debt73.1M94M157.4MShort Term
Debt73.1M94M157.4MCurrent Portion of Long Term Debt---
Accounts Payable121.6M144.4M162.1MAccounts Payable
Growth11.25%18.75%12.26%Income Tax
Payable35.4M41.2M45.9MOther Current
Liabilities354M412.9M473.4MDividends Payable---Accrued
Payroll---Miscellaneous Current
Liabilities354M412.9M473.4M Total Current
Liabilities584.1M692.5M838.8MLong-Term
Debt512.2M872.9M795.6MLong-Term Debt excl. Capitalized
Leases512.2M872.9M795.6MNon-Convertible
Debt512.2M872.9M795.6MConvertible Debt---Capitalized
Lease Obligations---Provision for Risks &
Charges581.6M310.8M437.4MDeferred
Taxes43.7M94.7M62MDeferred Taxes -
Credit134.6M122M112.1MDeferred Taxes -
Debit90.9M27.3M50.1MOther
Liabilities34.3M29.7M30.2MOther Liabilities (excl. Deferred
Income)34.3M29.7M30.2MDeferred Income--- Total
Liabilities1.85B2.03B2.21BNon-Equity Reserves---Total
Liabilities / Total Assets48.29%45.75%46.72%Preferred Stock
(Carrying Value)---Redeemable Preferred Stock---Non-
Redeemable Preferred Stock--- Common Equity
(Total)1.97B2.4B2.53BCommon Stock Par/Carry
44. cials/balance-
sheethttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/finan
cials/balance-sheet
income statementFiscal year is March-February. All values GBP
millions.201520162017 Sales/Revenue2.61B2.92B3.11BSales
Growth13.45%12.03%6.30% Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) incl.
D&A1.17B1.29B1.39BCOGS excluding
D&A1B1.11B1.17BDepreciation & Amortization
Expense168.4M187.5M220.1MDepreciation155.7M171.4M202.
5MAmortization of Intangibles12.7M16.1M17.6MCOGS
Growth9.80%10.58%7.44% Gross
Income1.44B1.63B1.72BGross Income
Growth16.60%13.20%5.40%Gross Profit Margin--
55.28%201520162017 SG&A
Expense942.4M1.07B1.13BResearch & Development---Other
SG&A942.4M1.07B1.13BSGA
Growth16.42%13.60%5.88%Other Operating Expense-
16.9M4.9MUnusual Expense(3.9M)15.3M68.4MEBIT after
Unusual Expense500.5M526.2M510.2MNon Operating
Income/Expense(23.3M)(20M)28.4MNon-Operating Interest
Income200,000600,000300,000Equity in Affiliates (Pretax)---
Interest Expense17M23.3M27.4MInterest Expense Growth-
9.09%37.06%17.60%Gross Interest
Expense21.3M33.3M36.3MInterest
Capitalized4.3M10M8.9M Pretax
Income460.4M483.5M511.5MPretax Income
Growth33.64%5.02%5.79%Pretax Margin--16.47%Income
Tax97.7M100.4M99.5MIncome Tax - Current
Domestic104.1M108.1M109.9MIncome Tax - Current Foreign--
-Income Tax - Deferred Domestic(6.4M)(7.7M)(10.4M)Income
Tax - Deferred Foreign---Income Tax Credits---Equity in
Affiliates3.4M4.2M3.9MOther After Tax Income (Expense)---
Consolidated Net Income366.1M387.3M415.9MMinority
Interest Expense(4M)(3.9M)(5.7M) Net
Income370.1M391.2M(5.7M)Net Income
Growth12.87%5.70%7.77%Net Margin Growth--
45. 13.57%Extraordinaries & Discontinued Operations---Extra
Items & Gain/Loss Sale Of Assets---Cumulative Effect -
Accounting Chg---Discontinued Operations---Net Income After
Extraordinaries370.1M391.2M421.6MPreferred Dividends---Net
Income Available to Common370.1M391.2M421.6M EPS
(Basic)2.052.162.31EPS (Basic)
Growth11.93%5.30%7.29%Basic Shares
Outstanding180.7M181.4M182.2M EPS
(Diluted)2.032.142.31EPS (Diluted)
Growth12.00%5.53%7.89%Diluted Shares
Outstanding182.5M182.8M182.6M EBITDA665M729M798.7M
EBITDA Growth15.23%9.62%9.56%EBITDA Margin--
25.71%https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancialshttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancialshttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancialshttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancialshttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancialshttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancialshttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancialshttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancialshttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancialshttps://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fin
ancials
cash flowFiscal year is March-February. All values GBP
millions.201520162017 Net Income before
Extraordinaries370.1M387.3M415.9MNet Income
Growth14.44%4.65%7.38%Depreciation, Depletion &
Amortization168.4M187.5M220.1MDepreciation and
Depletion155.7M171.4M202.5MAmortization of Intangible
Assets12.7M16.1M17.6MDeferred Taxes & Investment Tax
Credit--(10.4M)Deferred Taxes--(10.4M)Investment Tax Credit-
--Other Funds(45.7M)(16.4M)(34.7M)Funds from
Operations492.8M558.4M590.9MExtraordinaries---Changes in
Working
Capital27M11.5M35MReceivables(7.4M)(15.2M)(7.1M)Accoun
ts Payable41M34.3M45.2MOther Assets/Liabilities--- Net
46. Operating Cash Flow519.8M569.9M625.9MNet Operating Cash
Flow Growth21.28%9.64%9.83%Net Operating Cash Flow /
Sales19.93%19.51%20.15%Investing
Activities201520162017 Capital
Expenditures(545.8M)(715.7M)(609.8M)Capital Expenditures
(Fixed Assets)(518.5M)(680.3M)(571.2M)Capital Expenditures
(Other Assets)(27.3M)(35.4M)(38.6M)Capital Expenditures
Growth-78.25%-31.13%14.80%Capital Expenditures / Sales-
20.93%-24.50%-19.63%Net Assets from
Acquisitions(19.5M)(9.2M)-Sale of Fixed Assets & Businesses-
--Purchase/Sale of Investments-600,000(3M)6.4MPurchase of
Investments-600,000(3M)(7.7M)Sale/Maturity of Investments--
14.1MOther Uses-100,000-200,000-Other Sources--192.9M Net
Investing Cash Flow(566M)(728.1M)(410.5M)Net Investing
Cash Flow Growth-84.49%-28.64%43.62%Net Investing Cash
Flow / Sales-21.70%-24.92%-13.22%Financing
Activities201520162017Cash Dividends Paid -
Total(130.6M)(155.1M)(167.1M)Common
Dividends(130.6M)(155.1M)(167.1M)Preferred Dividends---
Change in Capital Stock3.2M3.6M5.6MRepurchase of Common
& Preferred Stk.---Sale of Common & Preferred
Stock3.2M3.6M5.6MProceeds from Stock
Options3.2M3.6M5.6MOther Proceeds from Sale of Stock---
Issuance/Reduction of Debt, Net135.1M364.1M(49.8M)Change
in Current Debt71.2M20.8M17.6MChange in Long-Term
Debt63.9M343.3M(67.4M)Issuance of Long-Term
Debt63.9M445.2M-Reduction in Long-Term Debt-
(101.9M)(67.4M)Other Funds---Other Uses---Other Sources---
Net Financing Cash Flow7.7M212.6M(211.3M)Net Financing
Cash Flow Growth106.42%2661.04%-199.39%Net Financing
Cash Flow / Sales0.30%7.28%-6.80%Exchange Rate Effect-
800,000600,0001.8MMiscellaneous Funds000Net Change in
Cash(39.3M)55M5.9M Free Cash Flow1.3M(110.4M)54.7MFree
Cash Flow Growth-99.09%-8592.31%149.55%Free Cash Flow
Yield---
1.60%https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wtbdy/fina