iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
IBM sued former hybrid-cloud sales executive Louis Attanasio in Manhattan in May 2016 after he joined Informatica as chief revenue officer. IBM said he violated a 12-month global noncompete and had sent confidential company material to his personal email before leaving. The case sought to stop his move, recover compensation and address alleged misuse of confidential information; the available contemporaneous updates do not confirm its final disposition.
Why did IBM sue Louis Attanasio?
Attanasio had worked at IBM since 1989 and was its General Manager for Global Sales of Hybrid Cloud. He joined Informatica on May 5, 2016, as chief revenue officer. IBM’s complaint, as described by Fortune in 2016, alleged that taking the new role breached an agreement barring him from working for a competitor anywhere in the world for 12 months.
The dispute also arose as IBM faced business pressure: Fortune reported that the company had experienced 16 straight quarters of declining revenue. That context does not establish why Attanasio left or determine the merits of IBM’s claims.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteWhat information did IBM allege he took?
IBM accused Attanasio of sending confidential documents and messages to his personal email before leaving. The complaint reportedly identified information about sales pipelines, revenue targets, performance and resource allocation. These were allegations in IBM’s filing, not a court finding that he transferred or used the information improperly.
#1 Best Overall
Informatica rejected the suggestion that it sought IBM information by hiring him. A company spokesperson told Fortune: “It is unfortunate that IBM has chosen to resort to litigation to try to prevent Lou from joining Informatica. Despite IBM’s accusatory legal rhetoric in its court filings, Informatica does not need and never sought any IBM confidential information by hiring Lou.”
What did IBM ask the court to do?
IBM sought an injunction to enforce the worldwide noncompete, as well as repayment of compensation it said was owed under agreements. The reported requested amounts were:
| Requested relief | Amount or term | What the report says |
|---|---|---|
| Enforce noncompete | 12 months; global scope | IBM sought an injunction enforcing the restriction, according to its complaint as reported by Fortune in 2016. |
| Return of retention payment | $250,000 | IBM said Attanasio had accepted the payment to stay with the company in 2015. |
| Equity compensation | $251,357 | IBM sought this additional amount, according to Fortune’s account of the complaint. |
The reported complaint also asserted breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of confidential information, unfair competition and breach of agreements. Those are IBM’s claims; the available accounts do not establish that a court accepted them.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Could the global noncompete keep him from joining Informatica?
IBM asked the court to enforce the restriction, but the existence of a contract clause does not by itself show that a court enforced it. The available accounts do not provide a ruling on whether this particular worldwide, one-year provision was enforceable, nor do they establish a final judicial decision on the claims. The requested injunction was a remedy IBM sought, not proof that it obtained one.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Was the IBM–Informatica case settled?
A June 6, 2016 Fair Competition Law roundup reported that the parties had reached a settlement in principle before the preliminary-injunction hearing and notified the court. It also said the case remained pending at that time. The sources available here do not establish later settlement terms, a final settlement, or a final judgment, so the confirmed procedural endpoint remains unclear.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
