Consider This — Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Timing of When Consideration is Necessary for Restrictive Covenants

On February 3, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a decision reiterating the well-settled contract principle that courts should consider the adequacy of consideration for restrictive covenants at the time of contract formation, not at the time of enforcement. The case is North American Fire Ultimate Holdings, LP v. Alan Doorly.¹

As we have previously written, although the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently walked away from its multi-year effort to ban employee noncompete covenants altogether, states like Delaware are still making it harder to enforce noncompetes that do not contain reasonable temporal, geographic, or scope of activity restrictions. Employers thus need to remain vigilant and ensure that their employee restrictive covenants meet the necessary requirements for enforcement.

One often overlooked element of contract formation in the restrictive covenant space is the existence of adequate consideration. Many employers take for granted that their agreements with employees contain sufficient consideration to support the reciprocal promise to abide by post-employment restrictions. A common form of consideration in such agreements is stock or incentive units, which sometimes can be forfeited under specific conditions, and the Doorly decision addressed one critical aspect of this arrangement: when does a court assess the adequacy of consideration where the consideration is forfeited?

In Doorly, an employer and employee entered into an incentive unit grant agreement where, in exchange for the employer’s issuance of common units that would vest over time, the employee agreed to, among other things, abide by certain noncompetition and non-solicitation covenants. The unit agreement further contained a clause that required forfeiture of all vested and unvested units if the employee was terminated for cause, which the employer triggered when it terminated the employee for cause because he formed a competitive entity during employment.

The employer subsequently filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court seeking to enforce the restrictive covenants, and the employee responded by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing in part that the forfeiture of the units made the contract unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Delaware Chancery Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the units were the sole consideration for the restrictive covenants, and thus, once the employer terminated the employee for cause and declared the forfeiture of the units, the consideration disappeared. In other words, the Chancery Court said, “no consideration means no enforceable contract.”

The employer appealed this decision, arguing that consideration existed at the time of the contract’s formation, and thus that the Chancery Court erred by analyzing the consideration element after forfeiture, i.e., at the time of enforcement. The Delaware Supreme Court agreed with the employer, concluding that the determination of whether valid consideration exists should be assessed at the time of contract formation, not at the time of enforcement. The Delaware Supreme Court did not, however, reach the issue of whether forfeitable incentive units constitute valid consideration at the time of formation, instead sending the case back to the Chancery Court to reconsider this issue as well as the other arguments raised by the parties in the case below.

The Doorly decision reminds us that restrictive covenants are essentially just clauses in a contract, and Delaware law follows the bedrock contract principle that the existence of consideration is a necessary element for contract formation. It is also a warning to all employers that utilize Delaware choice of law clauses — which are popular in stock award agreements like the unit agreement in Doorly — to review their agreements to ensure the adequacy of consideration given in exchange for the promise to abide by the restrictive covenants. This is doubly true if the incentive units are forfeitable under various conditions, and employers should consider specifying other or additional consideration for the restrictive covenants to ensure the adequacy of the consideration, even in the event of forfeiture.

C.A. 142, 2026 WL 274647 (Del. Supr. Feb. 3, 2026)

Disclaimer

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.