Wealth firm clears anti-SLAPP hurdle – executive's reporter comments cost him
A Kansas appeals court has handed employers a clear win on noncompete enforcement, ruling free-speech defenses cannot shield a departing executive from contract claims.
In a decision filed on May 15, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed a lower-court ruling that lets Creative Planning, LLC press breach of contract and tortious interference claims against Stephen A. Greco, its former National Director of Wealth Management, and Spotlight Asset Group, Inc., the Illinois corporation he founded.
The underlying story will be familiar to most HR leaders. Creative Planning hired Greco in 2013 and had him sign a noncompetition and confidentiality agreement. The agreement barred him from sharing the firm's confidential information or competing with it during his employment and for a set period afterward.
In December 2016, while still employed by Creative Planning, Greco set up Spotlight. He resigned three months later and moved to the new firm. Creative Planning accused him of soliciting its clients in breach of the agreement.
The parties settled in September 2017. The deal included a mutual non-disparagement clause in which the parties agreed not to make any disparaging or defamatory remarks against or concerning each other.
That settlement did not end things. In June 2020, Creative Planning sued again, asserting five claims: breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective business relationships, defamation, tortious interference with contract, and civil conspiracy. The firm alleged Greco and Spotlight had made damaging statements to financial reporters and worked together to interfere with its business.
Greco and Spotlight responded with an aggressive defense. They moved to strike most of the claims under the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act, the state's anti-SLAPP statute designed to dismiss lawsuits that target protected speech on issues of public concern. They argued Greco's comments to reporters touched on matters of public interest, including an SEC whistleblower complaint and related investigations, and were therefore shielded by the First Amendment.
The trial court allowed Creative Planning to take limited discovery focused on the motion. The defendants also obtained some discovery of their own. After reviewing the resulting evidence, the trial court struck three of the five claims but allowed the breach of contract and tortious interference claims to move forward.
On appeal, Greco and Spotlight took an unusual position. They did not argue that the evidence failed to support the surviving claims. Instead, they argued the trial court should never have permitted any discovery, and that without it the claims would have collapsed.
The appeals court was not persuaded. Writing for the panel, Judge Hurst said a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute is not meant to be a tactic for shutting down potentially meritorious cases through restrictive discovery rules. The court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's decision to allow narrowly tailored discovery, and rejected the argument that the anti-SLAPP statute creates a heightened pleading standard for plaintiffs.
The court also dismissed Creative Planning's cross-appeal on the three struck claims, holding that the statute lets only the party that lost a motion to strike seek an early appeal.
For HR and employment law leaders, the decision lands several practical points.
Well-drafted noncompete, confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements remain enforceable, even when a former executive recasts the dispute as a free-speech matter. The court was direct that First Amendment protections do not give people license to ignore contractual commitments.
Settlement agreements that close out employment disputes deserve the same care as the underlying employment contracts. The non-disparagement clause Creative Planning included in 2017 is what gave it grounds to sue again three years later.
Anti-SLAPP statutes, enacted across the country, are increasingly turning up in employment-related litigation. The Kansas ruling signals that courts will not let those statutes function as a procedural shortcut to defeat contract claims that have real substance.
The case now returns to the Johnson District Court for continued proceedings.
