No Contract, No Problem - Charter Oak Gets A Chance To Prove Its Case

Posted on March 21, 2011 by N. Kane Bennett

 In a decision that will be officially release tomorrow (download) the Connecticut appellate court ordered a new trial in favor of Charter Oak Lending for the claims it brought against employees who defected to a competitor.   Unless there is a successful appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, this means Charter Oak will get a second chance to prove its claims against the key employees despite the lack of a written contract in place covering non-competition.   I originally posted about this case in November of 1999 when Charter Oak lost at the trial level.  The case result had generated media interest surrounding the claims because the damages and the lack of a contract governing the employment relationship. 

As I noted at the time, it is always better to have a written contract in place with employees to govern post termination conduct involving competition, solicitation, confidential information, and trade secrets. However, the lack of contract does not by itself leave a business without a remedy especially if the situation involves use of trade secrets or confidential information or the employees actively competing before departure.  

In Charter Oak, the trial court dismissed the claims finding that Charter Oak failed to make out a threshold case during the trial.  In other words, the case never reached the level of a final decision on the merits because the judge found that the basic elements of the claims were not met.  The basic claims were breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair trade practices. 

The appellate court reversed the decision and found that facts existed to make out threshold claims for these causes of action.  Therefore, the trial court judge should have permitted the case to proceed to a final decision on the merits.  Significantly,  the appellate court deemed as sufficient Charter Oak's claim that its client list was a trade secret entitled to protection under General Statutes 35-51 known as the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).  The court stated:

to make out a prima facie case for a violation of CUTSA, the plaintiff was required to present sufficient evidence that, if believed, would prove that the information in its customer list had independent economic value and that the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

Here were some of the facts that the court found sufficient to afford trade secret protection to the client list:

  • access was limited
  • the computers were encrypted
  • the building was secured where the computers were stored
  • employees were not permitted to share the list
  • employees understood the list was private
  • the lists were not sold or disclosed to third parties
  • the list could not be obtained from any other single source
  • the list gave Charter a competitive advantage

In addition to the ruling on CUTSA, the appellate court reaffirmed some aspects of the law with respect to fiduciary obligations of agents or employees.  The court affirmed the duty of loyalty owed by an agent to his or her principal.  This duty applies regardless of a whether a contract exists.  In the business context, this duty forbids an employee from actively competing against an employer concerning the subject matter of the agency or from using confidential information against the employer in competition.

Whether Charter Oak prevails in the new trial remains unclear.  However, the lack of a contract or written agreement should not prevent Charter Oak from getting a final decision on the merits.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Navigating FINRA's Mandatory Arbitration Requirement - An Overview

Posted on March 14, 2011 by N. Kane Bennett

 Raymond & Bennett attorney Joseph Blyskal contributed the following post to this Blog.

 I recently read an article indicating that arbitration was the preferred forum for member companies of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, but with a caveat--that the only real reason it was preferred was as damage control for the industry. With only some exceptions, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) requires arbitration of industry disputes, which simply means disputes amongst or between its members and associated persons. In addition, while nonmembers can compel members to arbitrate, nonmembers of FINRA cannot be compelled to arbitrate. Regardless of whether the motive is fiscal, public relations, or other, the mandatory arbitration requirement may be hard to get around. However, the presence of a good faith claim against nonmembers can create the option to litigate an industry dispute outside of arbitration.   

                                        

                                                           

FINRA members are defined as any entity: “who is registered or has applied for registration under the Rules of FINRA” or  “[a] sole proprietor, partner, officer, director, or branch manager of a member, or other natural person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, or a natural person engaged in the investment banking or securities business who is directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by a member, whether or not any such person is registered or exempt from registration with FINRA.”FINRA Manual Rule 13100(r). Some examples include: Metlife Securities, Inc., Bernad L. Madoff (now obviously inactive), and ING Financial Markets, LLC.

There are only a few enumerated exceptions to the mandatory arbitration rule. Disputes arising out of the insurance business activities of a member that is also an insurance company, claims alleging employment discrimination in violation of a statute, class actions, shareholder derivative actions, and matters that are inappropriate for the forum in light of the “purposes of FINRA and the intent of the Code” are excluded. FINRA Manual Rule 13200-13205. Depending on the circumstances, these are easily applied.

Less easily applied are the two threshold requirements that trigger mandatory arbitration for a dispute--that the dispute arises from the (1) business activities of (2) members or associated persons.  These must be addressed before considering the application of the exceptions.

Whether a dispute arises from business activities is a factual inquiry. It is liberally construed, however. It includes claims for commissions earned, discharge from employment, and non-statutory discrimination claims. Generally, this is a threshold element.  

The more litigation-friendly element is the second—that the dispute is between members, a member and an associated persons, or associated persons. Whether an entity is a FINRA member is not usually debatable (there are formal registration requirements). However, whether an entity is an “associated person” is often subject to debate.  Courts often deny motions to compel arbitration where a factual showing is not made to support a finding of “associated person” as defined in the Code.

Cases where there are parent companies and subsidiaries involved in the dispute, or where there are employees or registered representatives as parties that are not FINRA members, or not employed by FINRA members, are breeding grounds for litigation over this second threshold provision.

Of course, in any case—whether the threshold elements are present or an exception applies—the general rule that those not party to an agreement to arbitrate cannot be compelled to do so applies to the FINRA arbitration provision. Thus, litigation is clearly a viable option where there is at least one entity involved that is not a FINRA member.

While difficult to get around the arbitration provisions of FINRA, it may be possible to do so. Litigants, both those prosecuting and defending claims, should identify and categorize all the disputants before making a determination that arbitration is indeed “mandatory”.

Tags: , , , ,

Computer Forensics In Business Litigation - Ask The Expert

Posted on March 5, 2011 by N. Kane Bennett

Many business litigation cases require experts in various fields.  I am going to feature experts on this blog in an "ask the expert" series of interviews.  Disclaimer:  I am not endorsing any experts that I feature on this blog or the opinions expressed.  I am posting these interviews to offer my readers some insights from the various professionals that get involved with business litigation cases.

Monique Ferraro is an expert in computer forensics and the principal of Technology Forensics, LLC.  She is also an attorney. The following is my recent interview with Monique. 

Q: What issues do you see in business disputes involving computer forensics:

 

A: Mostly, we see parties seeking email and deleted email. Increasingly, lawyers are asking for email and all electronically stored information containing metadata in their discovery requests. When they don’t get what they asked for initially, or if the party is not able to produce the information on their own, they call us. We figure out the best way to obtain the information requested without disrupting the business process while maintaining the integrity of the potential evidence and providing a solid chain of custody.

As far as the types of cases, we see computer forensics being requested in every type of litigation, from contract disputes to debt collection, employment litigation and even motor vehicle accidents.

 

 

Q: Many people think that when they delete computers docs and emails, its deleted.  In laymans terms, what really happens to it?  Can it be recovered?

 

A: It’s important to remember that computers were designed by engineers, not lawyers. Lawyers are concerned with precision of language. If you say you deleted something, then you deleted something. It’s gone. Unrecoverable. Engineers think in terms of efficiency.

 

When computer systems were designed, the engineers who developed them figured it would be more efficient to simply mark the space where information is held as available for reuse rather than truly deleting the file. The process uses less energy and is more efficient than truly deleting the file.

So, when we hit the ‘delete’ key, information isn’t deleted.

 

What happens is that the computer software goes to the table that keeps track of all the files and where they’re located and makes a check mark indicating that the space where that file is kept can be used for something else. Next time the computer goes to save a file, it can save it to this newly open space. However, because the size of computer storage is so large now, the space left open by the ‘deleted’ file is rarely reused. The original file stays there, lying in storage but with the space marked as available until it is either overwritten or ‘wiped.’

 

‘Wiping’ refers to really deleting a computer file. To really delete a computer file by wiping, a process is used that both marks the space as available and overwrites the space. Usually, the space is overwritten several times in order to obliterate any data remaining.

 

Because deleted data isn’t really deleted in the true sense unless it is wiped, most of the time deleted files can be retrieved and fully restored. That is true for files that have been consciously saved as well as data that has not been saved is held in temporary storage, as with Internet data.

 

Q: What are you seeing in the courts in terms of road blocks to getting access to servers and hard drives?

 

A: Most of the time, courts have been quite willing to grant discovery of electronically stored information. It gets tricky when litigants ask for a specific file or folder on a network or a targeted hard drive. Parties resist requests that involve having the opposing party’s expert on site, which is what litigants often request when seeking a specific storage device, folder or file. Of course, few businesses welcome the opposing party coming in and accessing their systems and data.

 

The objections are usually based upon keeping their business and client data secure and confidential and preventing disruption of their business. If there haven’t been discovery abuses and the party is trustworthy, the court usually allows the business to hire its own expert. To validate the acquisition of potential evidence, there are several methods that can be used, from documenting the process in writing to videotaping it, that can minimize the intrusion into business information and keep business disruption to a minimum.

 

Q: How do attorneys get access to emails that are on ISP accounts like Comcast, or third party servers like Gmail?

 

Most ISPs require a subpoena or court order to release information. It depends on the service provider, the information you’re looking for and who you’re requesting the information about. It’s best practice to contact the legal department of the ISP and ask them what they need and how they want it in order to get the results you seek. It may be that you’re legally entitled to the information, but if you don’t request if in the form that the ISP wants you to ask it in and from the person they designate, you won’t get what you’re looking for. It’s important to bear in mind that quite a lot of Internet service provider information is held in storage for a limited amount of time and that by the time there’s a lawsuit pending, the information is long gone.

 

Q: What issues have you seen with forensics and social media sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter?

A: Usually, we’re asked to mine data from social media sites as part of the whole process of investigating a specific person or case. It’s often an adjunct to the larger inquiry that helps to establish that we have the right information or to identify someone a target is communicating with. Of course, in some cases, the use of the social media is an issue in a case, and gaining the posting history is the challenge for the forensic examiner.

 

Q: Is it a good idea to work with an attorney early in an investigation?

 

A: We prefer to contract with the attorney representing the business because that’s the best way to protect our work product from being discovered by the opposing party. Attorney-client privilege extends to us if the attorney contracts with us. That provides the business with the same sort of protection of confidential information that they enjoy in their relationship with their attorney.

Continue Reading...
Tags: , , , ,