because there is no connection between Sourant’s breach of the covenant and his purchase of the 850 Acres, Murphy Farrell has no equitable interest in that property, and a constructive trust is not an available remedy. Thus, this ease is distinguishable from eases cited by Murphy Farrell in which a constructive trust was placed on property wrongly held as a direct result of a breach of a non-compete provision or other restrictive covenant. See Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 515-16, 100 S.Ct. 763, 62 L.Ed.2d 704 (1980) (imposing constructive trust in favor of government on profits from book authored by former CIA agent that were attributable to his violation of fiduciary obligations to CIA); Eden Hannon & Co. v. Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., 914 F.2d 556, 564 (4th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 395
holding that plaintiffs need only allege that defendants provided information to the securities analysts upon which the reports were based holding that district courts failure to hold evidentiary hearing to ascertain whether defendant breached plea agreement was harmless when it was clear defendant breached agreement recognizing that the burden is on the landlord in a lease dispute to establish that the lease contract had been breached and that such breach entitled the landlord to the possession of the property in question holding investment analyst entitled to constructive trust on profits realized by investor when it breached noncircumvention agreement by using analysts information to directly buy lease portfolio holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to present testimony that they were induced to enter an automobile lease by promises that they could disregard terms of the lease