In Eastern Wholesale Fence v. Hudson, 2024 WL 3757835 (Del. Ch. Aug. 12, 2024), plaintiff Eastern Wholesale Fence LLC alleged that defendant Damien Hudson breached certain restrictive covenants arising out of the sale of a business. Prior to initiating the Delaware Chancery Court action, Eastern Wholesale sued one of Hudson's affiliates—but not Hudson—in North Carolina. Shortly after the filing of the Chancery action, Hudson moved to dismiss or stay. And due to potential overlapping legal and factual issues, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick entered a stay.

Hudson owned a series of businesses that manufactured and sold wholesale aluminum, vinyl, chain-link and wood fence products. The Hudson Entities had a manufacturing facility in South Carolina and production facilities in North Carolina. Hudson sold the Hudson entities to Eastern Wholesale, a national wholesale distributor of fence products, pursuant to an asset purchase agreement. The purchase agreement bound Hudson to certain restrictive covenants, including non-solicitation and nondisparagement covenants. The nonsolicitation provision barred the Hudson parties for five years following closing, with no geographic limitation. The nondisparagement provision ran into perpetuity and without geographic limitation.