A Delaware court has granted a preliminary injunction against Chandler Keel, a former executive of Bradford Health Services, preventing him from working with competitors in the addiction treatment industry. This ruling affects Keel's ability to engage with businesses like Alsos Behavioral Health and Recovery Centers of America, which operate in the same market as Bradford. The decision underscores the importance of noncompete agreements in protecting business interests.
The case, BHP Partners Co., LP, et al. v. Chandler Keel, was filed in the Court of Chancery of Delaware under docket number C.A. No. 2025-1289-MTZ. The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, particularly in competitive industries.
The plaintiffs in this case are BHP Partners Co., LP, and its subsidiary, Bradford Health Services, LLC. Bradford operates facilities that provide addiction treatment and recovery services across several states, including Alabama, Florida, and Texas. The dispute arose after Keel, who served as Bradford's Vice President of Business Development and later as Chief Marketing Officer, expressed interest in working for competing companies shortly after his resignation from Bradford.
Keel had accepted an employment offer from Bradford in March 2023, which included a noncompete clause that prohibited him from engaging in any business that competed with Bradford during his employment and for six months thereafter. This clause was later extended to two years after his employment ended, as outlined in the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) that Keel signed. The LPA also included provisions regarding confidentiality and the handling of sensitive business information.
In January 2025, Keel began seeking employment with other addiction treatment providers, including Recovery Centers of America and Alsos Behavioral Health. Despite Bradford's attempts to retain him by increasing his salary, Keel ultimately resigned in June 2025, requesting a waiver of the noncompete clause and severance pay. Bradford denied these requests, citing the enforceability of the noncompete agreement.
Following Keel's resignation, Bradford filed a verified complaint for injunctive relief, alleging that Keel had breached the LPA's restrictive covenants by engaging with competitors and using confidential information. The court heard arguments on the motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently granted it, ruling that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits of their claims.
The court ruled, "Plaintiffs have made the required showing on their claims Keel violated the LPA’s restrictive covenants by disclosing Confidential Information and providing services for three Competitive Businesses."
Judge Martin Z. Teitelbaum presided over the case and emphasized that the plaintiffs had shown a threat of irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The court found that the noncompete clause was reasonable in scope and duration, given Keel's significant exposure to confidential business information during his tenure at Bradford.
This ruling has implications for both Keel and the companies he sought to join. It reinforces the idea that employers can protect their business interests through enforceable noncompete agreements, particularly in industries where competition is fierce and information is sensitive. The court's decision also highlights the importance of clearly defined contractual terms in employment agreements.
Looking ahead, the ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving noncompete agreements in Delaware and beyond. It underscores the necessity for employees to fully understand the implications of such agreements before accepting positions that might limit their future employment opportunities.
As for Keel, he may have the option to appeal the court's decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case serves as a reminder for both employers and employees about the legal ramifications of restrictive covenants in the workplace.