{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "virgin-islands", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in the U.S. Virgin Islands", "description": "The U.S. Virgin Islands may enforce a reasonable non-compete but has no statute on point; the Superior Court in Arvidson v. Buchar judges covenants under an indigenous common-law reasonableness test selected through the Banks methodology, and a small-island economy plus a no-at-will Wrongful Discharge Act make aggressive restraints hard to enforce.", "state": "U.S. Virgin Islands", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "The U.S. Virgin Islands enforces a non-compete only if it is reasonable in duration, area, and scope under a single trial-court decision, and aggressive restraints are hard to enforce in a small-island, non-at-will economy.", "keyLaw": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. 2019) (common law via 1 V.I.C. § 4)", "courtNarrowing": "rewrite", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Silent — no statute or case addresses tolling", "maxLength": "No statutory limit", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Arvidson reasonableness; favorable sale treatment inferred", "customerNonSolicit": "Arvidson reasonableness if partial restraint", "employeeNonSolicit": "Arvidson reasonableness if partial restraint" }, "about": [ "U.S. Virgin Islands non-compete agreements", "U.S. Virgin Islands restrictive covenants", "Arvidson v. Buchar reasonableness test", "Banks v. International Rental common-law methodology", "1 V.I.C. § 4 reception of the Restatements", "Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act non-compete consideration", "Virgin Islands Uniform Trade Secrets Act", "U.S. Virgin Islands non-compete tolling" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ] }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in the U.S. Virgin Islands?", "answerText": "Sometimes. The Virgin Islands is a reasonableness jurisdiction, not a per se ban like California or North Dakota. A covenant can be enforced if it is ancillary to a valid relationship, supported by consideration, and no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. But there is no non-compete statute, the leading authority is a single trial-court decision with no V.I. Supreme Court ruling behind it, and that decision struck the covenant in front of it down — so enforcement is real but fact-dependent and far from automatic.", "sources": [ { "id": "arvidson-enforceable", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson v. Buchar is the leading Virgin Islands non-compete decision (a Superior Court / trial-level opinion, with no V.I. Supreme Court ruling on point): the court adopted a common-law rule of reasonableness for covenants not to compete and, applying it, voided the covenant before it as a matter of law.", "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, the Arvidsons have met their summary judgment burden, and the Court finds the covenant to not compete invalid and unenforceable as a matter of law", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-arvidson-enforceable" }, { "id": "vic-1-4", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "1 V.I.C. § 4 — Application of common law; restatements", "citation": "1 V.I.C. § 4.", "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/container?config=014DJAA3OWU1MmYyMC1kNzRhLTQ4NDAtYTMxZS01YzJhMzBkZDA0NDMKAFBvZENhdGFsb2dSOvVciRp0EcGxvMymeAXd", "proposition": "1 V.I.C. § 4 makes the common law as expressed in the Restatements the rules of decision in Virgin Islands courts in the absence of local law to the contrary — the historical hinge by which the Restatement reasonableness framework first reached Virgin Islands non-compete law.", "verbatimQuote": "shall be the rules of decision in the courts of the Virgin Islands in cases to which they apply, in the absence of local laws to the contrary.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-vic-1-4" } ] }, { "slug": "governing-test", "label": "What test do courts apply?", "heading": "What test does the Superior Court apply to a Virgin Islands non-compete?", "answerText": "The Superior Court applies a common-law rule of reasonableness. Under Arvidson, a partial restraint of trade is valid only when it is ancillary to a valid contract or transaction, supported by valid consideration, protects a legitimate business interest, and is reasonable in its duration, geographic area, and the scope of activity it restricts. Reasonableness is then measured against five factors the court drew from earlier Virgin Islands case law.", "sources": [ { "id": "arvidson-rule", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson adopts the rule of reasonableness for Virgin Islands non-competes: a partial restraint of trade may be valid and enforceable when it is ancillary to a valid contract or transaction, supported by valid consideration, protects a legitimate business interest, and is reasonable as to duration, geography, and scope.", "verbatimQuote": "In accordance, this Court similarly adopts the same rule of reasonableness", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-arvidson-rule" }, { "id": "arvidson-factors", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson measures reasonableness against five factors drawn from earlier Virgin Islands case law: the duration of the restriction, the area of the restriction, whether the employer's interest is reasonably protected, whether undue hardship falls on the employee, and whether the public interest is reasonably protected.", "verbatimQuote": "This test of reasonableness must be applied to the following five factors 1 Is the duration of the restriction reasonable? 2 Is the area of restriction reasonable? 3 Is the interest of the employer reasonably protected? 4 Is undue hardship imposed on the employee? 5 Is the public interest reasonably protected?", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-arvidson-factors" }, { "id": "arvidson-factintensive", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Although the ultimate determination of reasonableness is a question of law, Arvidson treats it as a fact-intensive inquiry that weighs the totality of the circumstances rather than applying a rigid formula.", "verbatimQuote": "reasonableness is a fact intensive inquiry that depends on weighing the totality of the circumstances", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-arvidson-factintensive" } ] }, { "slug": "common-law-source", "label": "Where does the rule come from?", "heading": "If there is no statute, where does the non-compete rule come from?", "answerText": "From the territory's common law, which the courts now build deliberately rather than by copying the Restatements. Historically, 1 V.I.C. § 4 directed Virgin Islands courts to apply the Restatements as their rules of decision. In Banks v. International Rental & Leasing Corp., the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands held that the Legislature did not intend that statute to force mechanical application of the latest Restatement, and in Connor it set out the three-factor analysis Virgin Islands courts use to choose a rule.", "sources": [ { "id": "banks-section4", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Banks v. International Rental & Leasing Corp.", "citation": "Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8676262/banks-v-international-rental-leasing-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8676262/banks-v-international-rental-leasing-corp/#:~:text=The%20rules%20of%20the%20common,local%20laws%20to%20the%20contrary.", "proposition": "Banks quotes 1 V.I.C. § 4, the reception statute that made the Restatements the rules of decision in Virgin Islands courts in the absence of local law — the starting point the court then limited.", "verbatimQuote": "The rules of the common law, as expressed in the restatements of the law approved by the American Law Institute, and to the extent not so expressed, as generally understood and applied in the United States, shall be the rules of decision in the courts of the Virgin Islands in cases to which they apply, in the absence of local laws to the contrary.", "date": "2011-12-15", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-banks-section4" }, { "id": "banks-method", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Banks v. International Rental & Leasing Corp.", "citation": "Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I. 2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8676262/banks-v-international-rental-leasing-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8676262/banks-v-international-rental-leasing-corp/#:~:text=We%20conclude%20that%20the%20Legislature,apply%20the%20most%20recent%20Restatement.", "proposition": "Banks holds that the Legislature did not intend 1 V.I.C. § 4 to compel the Supreme Court to apply the most recent Restatement mechanically — freeing Virgin Islands courts to develop their own common law.", "verbatimQuote": "We conclude that the Legislature did not intend for section 4 of title 1 to compel this Court to mechanically apply the most recent Restatement.", "date": "2011-12-15", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-banks-method" }, { "id": "connor-factors", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Government of the Virgin Islands v. Connor", "citation": "Gov't of the V.I. v. Connor, 60 V.I. 597 (V.I. 2014).", "url": "https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810860/File/Opinions/Published/2014/File16.pdf", "proposition": "Connor restates the Banks methodology: instead of mechanistically following the Restatements, Virgin Islands courts weigh three non-dispositive factors — prior local adoption, the majority position, and most importantly the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands.", "verbatimQuote": "Rather, this Court has instructed that, instead of mechanistically following the Restatements, courts should consider \"three non-dispositive factors\" to determine Virgin Islands common law: \"(1) whether any Virgin Islands courts have previously adopted a particular rule; (2) the position taken by a majority of courts from other jurisdictions; and (3) most importantly, which approach represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands.\"", "date": "2014-02-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-connor-factors" } ] }, { "slug": "duration-limits", "label": "How are duration, area, and scope judged?", "heading": "How do courts judge a covenant's duration, geographic area, and scope?", "answerText": "By asking whether each dimension is no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate interest. Arvidson struck its covenant precisely because it gave no durational, territorial, or activity limit and never identified the interest it was meant to protect. The older decision in V.I. Diving Schools v. Dixon voided a covenant on the same ground — that it was an unreasonable restraint greater than necessary to protect the employer's business interest.", "sources": [ { "id": "arvidson-scope", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson voided its covenant because it failed the protectable-interest test and provided no time, place, or manner restriction, making it overly broad and invalid.", "verbatimQuote": "The Covenant to not compete does not pass the three pronged business interest test and, by failing to provide time, place, and manner restrictions, is overly broad and invalid", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-arvidson-scope" }, { "id": "dixon-void", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "V.I. Diving Schools/Supplies, Inc. v. Dixon", "citation": "V.I. Diving Schools/Supplies, Inc. v. Dixon, Civ. No. 1046/1982 (Terr. Ct. V.I. Oct. 7, 1983).", "url": "https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810747/File/Opinions/Archive/VI%20Diving%20Sch%20v.%20Dixon%20%28IAM%29.pdf", "proposition": "V.I. Diving Schools v. Dixon, an earlier Territorial Court decision, voided a non-compete as an unreasonable restraint on competition that was against public policy — illustrating the same greater-than-necessary standard later adopted in Arvidson.", "verbatimQuote": "restrictive clauses of the agreement are void and unenforceable as against public policy on the ground that they are unreasonable restraint on competition.", "date": "1983-10-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-dixon-void" } ] }, { "slug": "consideration", "label": "Is continued employment enough consideration?", "heading": "What consideration supports a Virgin Islands non-compete, and is continued employment enough?", "answerText": "Arvidson makes valid consideration an element of an enforceable covenant, but no Virgin Islands decision squarely holds whether continued employment alone is sufficient for a covenant signed mid-employment. The wrinkle is that the territory is not an at-will jurisdiction: the Wrongful Discharge Act lets an employer dismiss an employee for only nine enumerated reasons, so the mainland argument that an employer gives value by merely refraining from firing is weaker here.", "sources": [ { "id": "arvidson-consideration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson lists valid consideration as a required element of an enforceable Virgin Islands non-compete, framing the covenant as valid only when ancillary to a valid contract or transaction and supported by valid consideration.", "verbatimQuote": "is supported by valid consideration", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-arvidson-consideration" }, { "id": "arvidson-wda", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019) (citing 24 V.I.C. § 76).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson notes that the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act, 24 V.I.C. § 76, enumerates only nine reasons for which an employer may lawfully discharge an employee — confirming the territory is not an at-will jurisdiction.", "verbatimQuote": "24 V I C § 76 (the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act enumerating only nine reasons for which an employer may lawfully discharge an employee after qualifying for protection under the statute)", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-arvidson-wda" }, { "id": "q5-arvidson-wda", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019) (citing 24 V.I.C. § 76).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson's recognition that the Wrongful Discharge Act allows discharge for only nine enumerated reasons supports the caution that continued employment may add little value as consideration, favoring fresh independent consideration for a mid-employment covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "24 V I C § 76 (the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act enumerating only nine reasons for which an employer may lawfully discharge an employee after qualifying for protection under the statute)", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-q5-arvidson-wda" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will a court narrow or void an overbroad covenant?", "heading": "Will a court narrow an overbroad covenant, or void it entirely?", "answerText": "Arvidson chose equitable reformation as the soundest rule for Virgin Islands non-competes, rejecting both the rigid blue-pencil rule and the all-or-nothing approach. But the court adopted reformation with an express greater willingness to refuse to reform agreements that are not reasonable on their face, and it declined to rewrite the covenant in front of it because that clause had no time, place, or scope limit to salvage. An employer therefore cannot assume a court will rescue an overbroad clause.", "sources": [ { "id": "q6-arvidson", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson adopted equitable reformation — not the blue-pencil rule and not all-or-nothing voiding — as the soundest rule for Virgin Islands covenants not to compete.", "verbatimQuote": "the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands is the equitable reformation approach", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-q6-arvidson" }, { "id": "q6-arvidson-strict", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson applies reformation strictly, implementing it with a greater willingness to refuse to reform covenants that are not reasonable on their face — so an overbroad clause with no reasonable core is at risk of being voided rather than narrowed.", "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, the Court implements this rule with a greater willingness to refuse to reform agreements that are not reasonable on their face", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-q6-arvidson-strict" }, { "id": "q6-dixon", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "V.I. Diving Schools/Supplies, Inc. v. Dixon", "citation": "V.I. Diving Schools/Supplies, Inc. v. Dixon, Civ. No. 1046/1982 (Terr. Ct. V.I. Oct. 7, 1983).", "url": "https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810747/File/Opinions/Archive/VI%20Diving%20Sch%20v.%20Dixon%20%28IAM%29.pdf", "proposition": "V.I. Diving Schools v. Dixon voided an overbroad covenant as an unreasonable restraint against public policy — an example of the outcome when a covenant has no reasonable core for a court to enforce.", "verbatimQuote": "restrictive clauses of the agreement are void and unenforceable as against public policy on the ground that they are unreasonable restraint on competition.", "date": "1983-10-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-q6-dixon" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does the period toll if the employee breaches?", "heading": "Does the restricted period toll or extend if the employee breaches?", "answerText": "No Virgin Islands statute or decision addresses tolling — whether the clock pauses, or the restricted period is extended, while a former employee is violating the covenant or litigation is pending. This is an open question in the territory.", "sources": [ { "id": "q7-arvidson", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson assesses reasonableness, including duration, as a fact-intensive weighing of the totality of the circumstances — the lens a court would bring to a tolling or extension-on-breach clause, which no Virgin Islands authority addresses directly.", "verbatimQuote": "reasonableness is a fact intensive inquiry that depends on weighing the totality of the circumstances", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-q7-arvidson" } ] }, { "slug": "trade-secrets", "label": "What protects trade secrets if a covenant fails?", "heading": "If a non-compete is shaky, what protects trade secrets and confidential information?", "answerText": "The Virgin Islands has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which gives an employer a statutory remedy for misappropriation independent of any covenant. It defines a trade secret broadly, preserves contractual remedies alongside the Act, and the evidence code adds a privilege to resist disclosing trade secrets in litigation.", "sources": [ { "id": "vic-11-1001", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "11 V.I.C. § 1001 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act (short title)", "citation": "11 V.I.C. § 1001.", "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:56WP-9KS1-6G1M-90D3-00008-00", "proposition": "The Virgin Islands has enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 11 V.I.C. §§ 1001 et seq., providing a statutory misappropriation remedy that does not depend on a non-compete covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-vic-11-1001" }, { "id": "vic-11-1002", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "11 V.I.C. § 1002 — Definitions", "citation": "11 V.I.C. § 1002.", "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:56WP-9KS1-6G1M-90D5-00008-00", "proposition": "11 V.I.C. § 1002 defines a trade secret broadly to include any information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known and is the subject of reasonable efforts to keep secret.", "verbatimQuote": "\"Trade secret\" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-vic-11-1002" }, { "id": "vic-11-1008", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "11 V.I.C. § 1008 — Effect of other law", "citation": "11 V.I.C. § 1008.", "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:56WP-9KS1-6G1M-90DK-00008-00", "proposition": "11 V.I.C. § 1008 displaces conflicting common-law misappropriation remedies but expressly preserves contractual remedies alongside the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, so a confidentiality agreement and the statutory misappropriation claim can operate together.", "verbatimQuote": "This chapter does not affect: (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-vic-11-1008" }, { "id": "vic-5-858", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "5 V.I.C. § 858 — Trade secrets privilege", "citation": "5 V.I.C. § 858.", "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:56WP-9JF1-6G1M-90PJ-00008-00", "proposition": "5 V.I.C. § 858 gives the owner of a trade secret an evidentiary privilege to refuse and to prevent disclosure, subject to protective measures and a fraud/injustice limit.", "verbatimQuote": "A person has a privilege which may be claimed by him or his agent or employee, to refuse to disclose and to prevent other persons from disclosing a trade secret, owned by him, if the allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-vic-5-858" }, { "id": "dixon-notrade", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "V.I. Diving Schools/Supplies, Inc. v. Dixon", "citation": "V.I. Diving Schools/Supplies, Inc. v. Dixon, Civ. No. 1046/1982 (Terr. Ct. V.I. Oct. 7, 1983).", "url": "https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810747/File/Opinions/Archive/VI%20Diving%20Sch%20v.%20Dixon%20%28IAM%29.pdf", "proposition": "In Dixon the employer presented no evidence of any protectable trade secret, one part of the court's conclusion that it had not shown a legitimate interest worth protecting — illustrating why a documented protectable interest matters more than the covenant itself.", "verbatimQuote": "Plaintiff Virgin Islands Diving Schools presented no evidence of any trade secrets which the Defendants obtained that is worthy of protection.", "date": "1983-10-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-dixon-notrade" } ] }, { "slug": "antimonopoly", "label": "Can an overbroad covenant violate antitrust law?", "heading": "Can an overbroad covenant run afoul of the Virgin Islands Antimonopoly Law?", "answerText": "It may supply an additional, untested ground of attack. The Virgin Islands Antimonopoly Law makes it a violation to unreasonably restrain trade or commerce by contract, combination, or conspiracy. An employee challenging a sweeping covenant — especially in a small market where the restraint could foreclose competition — might invoke that statute alongside the common-law reasonableness defense.", "sources": [ { "id": "vic-11-1503", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "11 V.I.C. § 1503 — Violations enumerated", "citation": "11 V.I.C. § 1503.", "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:56WP-9KS1-6G1M-90M3-00008-00", "proposition": "The Virgin Islands Antimonopoly Law, 11 V.I.C. § 1503, makes it a violation to unreasonably restrain trade or commerce by contract, combination, or conspiracy — a potential, as-yet-untested statutory hook against an overbroad restrictive covenant, whose concerted-action language fits horizontal conduct more naturally than a two-party employment covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "By contract, combination, or conspiracy with one or more other persons unreasonably restrain trade or commerce", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-vic-11-1503" } ] }, { "slug": "other-covenants", "label": "How are non-solicits and sale-of-business covenants treated?", "heading": "How are non-solicits, NDAs, and sale-of-business or LLC covenants treated?", "answerText": "An employee non-solicit that restrains competitive activity should be drafted to satisfy Arvidson's reasonableness principles, because a restraint dressed up as a non-solicit is still a partial restraint of trade. Confidentiality and trade-secret clauses are supported separately by contract law and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act rather than by the non-compete test — though an overbroad confidentiality clause that operates as a de facto non-compete may draw similar scrutiny. Entity-governance covenants have a clear statutory foothold: the LLC statute expressly contemplates a court-ordered covenant not to compete as a term of a member buyout.", "sources": [ { "id": "q10-arvidson", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Arvidson v. Buchar", "citation": "Arvidson v. Buchar, 2019 VI SUPER 122 (Super. Ct. V.I. Sept. 10, 2019).", "url": "https://usvipublicportal-api.vicourts.org/courts/87edff36-c02b-4073-aea4-c0652bc123d9/cms/case/7432A3F8-AD71-45C5-B028-B4471D746A4E/docketentrydocuments/27b98266-7d9f-405f-b7ba-c221f8db0a97", "proposition": "Arvidson's reasonableness rule governs partial restraints of trade generally, so a non-solicitation covenant that restrains competitive activity is judged by the same ancillary, consideration, protectable-interest, and reasonable-scope requirements as a non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "a contract which is only in partial restraint of trade may be valid and enforceable when it", "date": "2019-09-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-q10-arvidson" }, { "id": "vic-13-1702", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "13 V.I.C. § 1702 — Court action to determine fair value of distributional interest", "citation": "13 V.I.C. § 1702.", "url": "https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&pddocfullpath=/shared/document/statutes-legislation/urn:contentItem:56WP-9M71-6G1M-90VX-00008-00", "proposition": "13 V.I.C. § 1702 lets a court set the terms of an LLC member buyout, expressly including a covenant not to compete or other restriction on a dissociated member — confirming entity-governance covenants are contemplated by Virgin Islands law.", "verbatimQuote": "a covenant not to compete or other restriction on a dissociated member", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-vic-13-1702" } ] }, { "slug": "ftc-and-courts", "label": "Does the FTC ban apply, and which court decides?", "heading": "Does the federal FTC non-compete ban apply, and which court decides a dispute?", "answerText": "No. The Federal Trade Commission's 2024 Non-Compete Rule never took effect — a federal court set it aside, the FTC acceded to that result, and the Commission has now removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. Virgin Islands non-compete disputes are governed by territorial common law and decided in the first instance by the Superior Court, with appeals to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands and a separate federal track in the District Court of the Virgin Islands.", "sources": [ { "id": "ftc-removal", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Removal of the Non-Compete Rule from the CFR", "citation": "Removal of the Non-Compete Rule, 91 Fed. Reg. 6507 (Feb. 12, 2026).", "url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/12/2026-02866/revision-of-the-negative-option-rule-withdrawal-of-the-cars-rule-removal-of-the-non-compete-rule-to", "proposition": "The FTC has removed its 2024 Non-Compete Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations after the rule was vacated and the Commission acceded to that vacatur, so there is no operative federal non-compete ban.", "verbatimQuote": "this final rule removes the Non-Compete Rule codified at 16 CFR part 910 from the Code of Federal Regulations", "date": "2026-02-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/virgin-islands#src-ftc-removal" } ] } ] } }