I think they downvoted you because that is totally different context than what discussion is about. We are not talking about CEO level agreements but simple workers.
I'm not arguing against the point. I'm simply clarifying-- for everyone's benefit-- that the assertion that "non-competes are unenforceable in CA" is not universally true.
You can be a simple worker and fall afoul of the above - if you have any options or stock you would be considered a part owner and then subject to a possible non compete, even as engineer #n
How does this work in practice? When you accept employment, you sign a non-compete which commences at the close of a future acquisition? I don't doubt that it's possible but I'm skeptical of the idea that a company can make a unilateral decision that's legally binding on you as an individual simply by virtue of the fact that you're a stock-holder. Has anyone here signed such an agreement? I'd be genuinely interested in reading the non-compete language.
No, when you're acquired as part of being acquired you sign a non-compete agreement. You're probably renegotiating salary/perks at that point so you'll likely be signing a new contract anyway.
I sold a two person company to a fifty person company, which triggered this situation. After the acquisition, I was a "normal worker" by most definitions.