Morrison Supply Company, LLC and Patriot Supply Holdings, Inc. v. Scott Hilburn and Mike Anthony, 12-15-00141-CV

This is an appeal from an order denying Morrison and Patriot's application for a temporary injunction in a dispute over noncompetition and non-solicitation covenants tied to stock option agreements.
Anthony and Hilburn, former Morrison employees, signed Nonqualified Stock Option Award Agreements in December 2012 containing a one-year noncompete and non-solicit, with confidentiality provisions.
Morrison sought to enforce the covenants, asserting the agreements were ancillary to an enforceable contract and that restraints were reasonable in time and geography; Anthony and Hilburn contested enforceability and claimed lack of consideration and coercive signing.
A three-day temporary injunction hearing occurred; the trial court found the covenants ancillary and the time restriction reasonable but concluded Morrison had an adequate remedy at law and denied the injunction, while noting the geographic scope was overbroad and not reforming pending final trial.
Morrison appeals, contending (a) the trial court abused its discretion in denying injunctive relief despite ongoing breaches and irreparable harm, and (b) the court should reform the overbroad geographic restrictions at the injunction stage under Texas law.
The appellate briefing requests reversal and remand for (i) grant of a temporary injunction and (ii) reform of the agreements to allow Morrison to recover damages for ongoing breaches.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse discretion in denying the temporary injunction?	Morrison showed probable right to relief and irreparable harm; covenants are ancillary and reasonable; breaches occurred; no adequate remedy at law.	Former Managers argued the agreements were illusory or unenforceable and that Morrison had an adequate remedy at law; no irreparable harm shown.	Yes; trial court abused its discretion and the injunction should be granted.
Was the geographic restriction overbroad and should the court reform it at the injunction stage under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.51(c)?	The restriction is tailored to the region where Anthony and Hilburn worked; reform is appropriate to permit relief for pre-reformation breaches.	The court should not reform at the injunction stage and the geographic scope issue is improper for reform then.	Yes; the court should reform the geographic restrictions at the injunction stage.
Are the noncompete and non-solicit provisions properly supported by consideration and enforceable ancillary to a valid agreement?	Confidential information and stock options constitute valid consideration; Marsh v. Cook supports enforceability when stock options relate to employer interest.	Arguments about consideration and duress were raised but not sustained; the agreements were disputed as illusory.	The provisions are ancillary to an enforceable agreement and supported by consideration.

Marsh USA, Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011) (stock options can provide valid consideration for noncompetes)
In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) (trial court's legal determinations on reform are reviewed de novo)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (injunction standards and probability of injury)
TransPerfect Translations, Inc. v. Leslie, 594 F. Supp. 2d 742 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (authority supporting reform of overbroad covenants at injunctive stage)