Connecticut Business Litigation Blog : Connecticut Business Lawyer & Attorney : N. Kane Bennett : Raymond & Bennett Law Firm : Hartford, Middletown, Glastonbury

After an eight week jury trial in Waterbury Superior Court, an East Hartford based flooring solutions company,Dur-A-Flex, has been awarded 50.5 million dollars in damages for the misuse of its trade secrets by Laticrete International, a Bethany based multinational corporation.  Laticrete was a former purchaser of Dur-A-Flex's colored sand products.  The jury found that the Laticrete misappropriated Dur-A-Flex's trade secrets for the colored sand and awarded 43.7  million dollars in damages.  After the jury verdict, Judge Dennis Eveleigh awarded Dur-A-Flex more than 5 million dollars for attorney's fees in a written decision (download here).   He also conditioned Laticrete's future use of Dur-A-Flex's technology on payment of royalty fees.

The case was brought back in 2006 on the Complex Litigation Docket in Waterbury  (Access court docket here). Dur-A-Flex was represented by Lawrence Rosenthal and Fletcher Thomson from Rogin Nassau's Hartford office.  Laticrete was represented by Elizabeth Stewart from Murtha Cullina's New Haven office.  

Dur-A-Flex supplied color sand to Laticrete for use in Laticrete's grout products.  Laticrete was the only customer of Dur-A-Flex for the sand product.  Laticrete at some point stopped buying the colored sand from Dur-A-Flex and started making an identical sand product.  Dur-A-Flex claimed that Laticrete was, if fact, using Dur-A-Flex's manufacturing process to make the sand.    The jury agreed with Dur-A-Flex and found that Laticrete violated Connecticut's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. 

Attorney Rosenthal commented on the verdict and stated he was "certain that Dur-A-Flex had been significantly damaged by Laticrete's improper and unauthorized use of its technology."  He believed the verdict was the largest ever for a trade secret case in Connecticut. 

I also believe this is the largest jury verdict in Connecticut history for a trade secret case.  Additionally, Connecticut case law is fairly sparse when it comes to significant trade secret cases.  I expect that the Dur-A-Flex case will impact trade secret law in Connecticut for years to come.  In particular, not only the amount of the award, but Judge Eveleigh's written decision on awarding future royalties and attorney's fees, which included a 10% contingency success fee.   Judge Eveleigh also issued a post-judgment order permitting Dur-A-Flex to attach the assets of Laticrete. It should be noted that Judge Eveleigh will become a justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court on June 1, 2010.   As such, I expect that his decision will carry more weight on these issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Some noteworthy Connecticut lawsuits, and of course, continuing coverage of Hulk Hogan....

• The Bysiewicz for Connecticut Attorney General saga continues.  Is she qualified or not?  Is the statute that seems to preclude her from running unconstitutional?  Will voters elect an Attorney General with essentially no significant experience representing regular clients?  Common sense says "no", but the polls suggest otherwise and she fights on.  Only time will tell as the legal community awaits the ruling of Judge Michael Sheldon.  Several bloggers and columnists have been regularly covering this issue, including the original story breaker,Ryan McKeen at A Connecticut Law Blog.   For the Republican take, check out Chris Healy on the Everyday Republican.  The Hartford Courant's coverage is here.  Christine Stuart at CT News Junkie regularly posts on the Bysiewicz case.
• Richard Blumenthal, although running for Senate, continues to make headlines as our current Attorney General.  His office is now suing Westport National Bank and an investment manager seeking to recover $16.2 million in losses for up to 240 investors.  As of Friday, the lawsuit was served but not yet returned to Court.  Blumenthal issued a statement saying the Bank collected $2.4 million in fees...but actually did little..."   The Bank President, Richard Cummings, fired back stating that Blumenthal's comments were "inflammatory" and contained "numerous inaccuracies."
• ctwatchdog reported on the CT Department of Consumer Protection charging Wal-Mart Stores in two locations with pricing violations.  A hearing will take place in May to determine fines against Wal-Mart for allegations of unit price violations with consumer products. 
• Doug Malan of the CT Law Tribune, who also has his own company on professional writing, covers the unfortunate story of a father and son lawsuit involving control and break up of the Simko law firm.  Although the lawsuit relates to a law firm dispute, the legal issues are the same for any family business where sometimes the formality of reducing agreements to writing are overlooked.  According to Malan's story, the case is headed for trial in May and Connecticut Statutes on limited liability companies may govern the outcome by default because there was no written operating agreement.  Family disputes over closely held businesses are always painful, but a clearly drafted operated agreement can mitigate the dispute especially if the agreement includes provisions for succession, disability, buy-outs and arbitration.
• A while back, I posted about Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against his attorney's for failing to advise him he had insurance coverage for an auto accident claim.  The Hulkster is back at it.  This time he is suing his insurance company for not giving him enough coverage.  You might see this kind of a lawsuit in Connecticut but typically only against an agent, not the insurance company itself.  In fact, many times lawsuits are filed in Connecticut against insurance agents for professional malpractice or breach of fiduciary duty for failing to obtain the proper coverages for clients. It seems the Hulk had 30 million in assets but only a $250,000 auto policy. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Ashby Jones of Wall Street Journal blog writes an intriguing post about the Google and Viacom lawsuit concerning Viacom's claims of copyright infringement against YouTube (Google subsidiary).  The post recites how Viacom employees were uploading copyrighted copies of their own videos to YouTube to help prove that YouTube was not promptly removing videos that infringe copyrights.  At stake: immunity under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  Google says its protected from suit under the Act because YouTube removes content upon request of a copyright holder.  Viacom says otherwise and points to some of its own videos that were not removed.  I do not know the particulars of the lawsuit, but if Viacom hopes to prevail, you would expect that they have more to proceed on than there own employee videos.
• PatentlyO, the nations leading patent law blog, has a humorous post indicating Starbucks may soon be subject to a false marketing claim if it keeps a patent number on its corrugated cardboard cups for much longer.  Professor Dennis Crouch looked up the patent  on the cup and its set to expire in a month.  Maybe Starbucks will settle out of court like the coffee house did with Kramer on Seinfeld for lifetime free coffee!  (if you are wondering, this happened in the Maestro episode)   
• Brendon Tavelli of The Privacy Law Blog writes about the Federal Trade Commissions settlement against LifeLock,Inc. for misrepresentation concerning its identity theft services and protections.  35 states joined in the settlement.  According the the settlement, LifeLock was not providing the comprehensive identify theft coverage it advertised.  Any consumer considering identify theft should do a very detailed investigation of the company and its services.  I wrote a post recently about data loss and noted that many victims are offered identity theft protection as part of the settlement.  Many times, the protection is not adequate. 
• Victoria Pynchon's Settle It Now Blog has a compelling post about her project to teach women to negotiate better in retail, relationships, employment, and the law.  I recently discovered this popular blog and now I am a regular reader.  Great insights, not only for women (although she says so a few times).
• John Buford of the North Carolina Business Litigation Report has a post about a business valuation case involving a closely held business.  At issue in the case was determining a value of an unproven technology.  The problem was setting a fair price to avoid a windfall for either side.  Although it is a North Carolina case, the concepts of valuing intellectual property, especially unproven technology, is more of a function of the science of appraisals than state law.  Some useful concepts are discussed including the appraiser's methodology that the court accepted.
• Mashable, a top 100 blog, discusses Twitter's birthday only 4 years ago.  Twitter hit 50 million tweets per day last month. Mashable is a great blog that has just about everything there is to do with social media and web 2.0.
• For more on social media: Nicole Black's Sui Generis - a New York Law Blog - discusses Nicole's new book, "Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier."  The book is co-authored by Carolyn Elefant, who publishes the blog MyShingle.com an excellent resource for solos and small firm lawyers.  
•  Megan Erickson's Social Networking Blog also details the Classmates.com settlement.  I guess  I was not the only one getting those annoying emails claiming my classmates were looking for me. 
• Cannot do a business blog round up without mentioning the ScotusBlog and its post on Anna Nicole Smith's estate losing her long disputed claim for millions from her tycoon husband J. Howard Marshall.  The Post includes the decision and a summary story.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here are some quick hits on business blogs:

The Wall Street Journal blog reports on two restaurants involved in a lawsuit to determine who is most harmful to your health.  Well, sort of.  The Heart Attack Grill, an Arizona eatery, filed a federal lawsuit against the owners of Heart Stoppers Sports Grill, a Florida restaurant, accusing them of stealing the idea for an unhealthy menu.  

Victoria Pynchon of the Settle It Now blog is trying to decide on a cover for her conflict resolution book entitled "A is for Asshole, the ABC's of Conflict Resolution."  If the cover is anything like the title, it should be a hit seller.

Edward McNally of the Delaware Business Litigation Blog has a helpful post that links to a new Delaware case for anyone looking for ways to calculate money damages or breach of a non-compete agreement.  Many times, these cases are resolved with injunctions or temporary restraining orders.  It is not very common to actually get to the issue of monetary damages for breach of a non-compete agreement.   This new case provides some ideas on how to calculate damages.

Megan Erickson's Social Networking Blog discusses Facebook's concerns over identifying its responsibilities for privacy of its 350 million users.

 Maxwell Kennerly's Litigation and Trial Blog digests recent Third Circuit law in two different cases involving first amendment and privacy rights for students creating fake MySpace pages.

 The Business Law Prof Blog has an interesting post about turning a simple contractual relationship into a fiduciary relationship.  Once a fiduciary relationship is established, it can have significant implications on the outcome of litigation.  A mere contractual relationship is not significant enough to form a fiduciary relationship absent other special factors.  One of my prior posts covers breach of fiduciary duty in Connecticut.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Here's some humor for the holidays:

• A very funny post from Faces of Lawsuit Abuse.org.  It is a 2009 poll of the most ridiculous lawsuits of the year.  My vote was for the April winner: "Tourist sues New York club after she slipped while dancing on top of the bar."  (story here). The judge carefully examined the facts and made his ruling according to simple math:  drunk + dancing + wet bar = case dismissed.

• "You dont bring a gun to a snowball fight,"  brought to you by one of my favorites Above the Law, a legal tabloid.   This is now a viral holiday story about a snowball fight between a lawyer and a police officer.  Who do you think wins that fight?  Read the lawyer's take here, and to make your own decision, check out the video.

• Inmates do not like Christmas music, but judges do!  According to the Phoenix news blog,   the Maricopa County Sheriff has won its fifth lawsuit from inmates related to playing Christmas tunes in county jails.    My guess is they were playing Michael Bolton's Christmas album, which has made a few  "worst album ever" lists for christmas songs. Look for an appeal based on cruel and unusual punishment.

• Riskvue, a website for risk management professionals, has a detailed post on holiday party disasters and how to avoid them.   The Denver Business Journal says "Don't let Your Holiday Party Become A New Year's Lawsuit."  What is it about drinking at an office party and the photocopier?  For some funny videos, check out YouTube "holiday party disasters."  

• For some humorous reports on a series of recent lawsuits, check out Jester's Courtroom on the Center for Individual Freedom blog. 

 Happy Holidays everyone!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here are some quick hits from Blogs I read around the country on business litigation.

Dionne Searcey of the Wall Street Journal law blog reports on the intellectual property fight over the red, white, and blue "Hope" image of President Barrack Obama created by Los Angeles artist Shepard Fairey.  Fairey is claiming his rights to the work, but apparently is confused as to his source material leading to the withdrawal of his duped attorneys. 

Rush on Business breaks down his tips for negotiating Franchise Agreements. Rush highlights the need to have an attorney review your franchise agreement and not to believe any franchisor that says you do not need an attorney or that they will not hold you to certain terms of the agreement.

A win for digital technology was reported on by Mack Sperling in the North Carolina Business Litigation Report.  Mack reports on a case where a settlement agreement was challenged under the statue of frauds because it involved land and there were no written signatures.  You can read here an earlier post from me on the statute of frauds in Connecticut.  The court upheld the agreement in part based on electronic signatures in emails exchanged between counsel. 

Nancy Savitt of the Privacy Law Blog reports on an enforcement action concerning the Children's Online Privacy Protect Act (COPPA).  The Federal Trade Commission fined Iconix Brand Group, Inc $250,000 for "collecting personal information from children without complying with COPPA's parent consent..."  The personal information at issue was dates of birth.  Collecting personal identifiers such as dates of birth can be a real risk for any business.  Read here for some of my posts on how Connecticut businesses can address privacy concerns.

 Jeffrey Mehalic's West Virginia's Business Litigation Blog discusses an interesting suit involving misappropriation of trade secrets against the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  A corporation, Mylan, brought a lawsuit against the paper claiming misappropriation of trade secrets and conversion for articles that were allegedly not favorable to Mylan.

Edward McNally of Delaware Business Litigation Blog reports on a case upholding Delaware as a forum for a trade secret case.  This post is informative in that it discusses why Delaware is often a preferred forum for corporate litigants trying to protect trade secrets. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here is a round up of a few interesting business lawsuits making news in Connecticut this past week: 

Smoking Gun "Crap" Email In Case Watched by Wall Street

In Pursuit Partners, LLC v. UBS AG, et al., a 35 million dollar prejudgment remedy was awarded in favor of a Connecticut hedge fund against UBS.  Judge Blawie issued the order in Stamford Superior Court after finding the bank was in possession of material non-public information regarding downgrades to financial products that UBS continued to sell.  This case is getting a lot of attention on Wall Street and reported on by Matthew Goldstein  at seekingalpha.com and Serena NG and Carrick Mollenkamp on WSJ.com. 

The UBS case will be interesting to watch and is another example of the increasing importance of discovering smoking gun emails.  Preliminary discovery in the case turned up internal emails calling some of the financial products "crap."   Here is a docket report on the case. (download).

Fairfield Company Uncovers Fraud and Ejects Board Member

Competitive Technologies (CTT), won a contested default judgment for more than $4 million dollars after discovering a former board member took company money and invested it in a fictitious South American company that did not exist.  Read the report on the case by Michael Juliano of the Connecticut Post.  You can also download here a copy of the judgment from Judge Dorsey who found that the defendants willfully disregarded court orders.  

The fraud was uncovered in part by the work of Breen & Associates.  I have worked with Bill Breen before on several cases.  He is an exceptional fraud investigator and expert.  Looks like he successfully uncovered another financial fraud for a business client.   

Civil Rights Violations Alleged Against Litchfield In Refusing Jewish Temple

Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Town of Litchfield over the Town's refusal to permit modification of his property for religious purposes.  The complaint (download here) states that the Rabbi is seeking declaratory relief, permanent injunction, and damages for violations of civil rights and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.  This case was reported on by Christine Stuart, editor of  CTNews Junkie where a reader left some disturbing comments about anti-semitic statements at the commission hearings on the matter. 

An attorney for the Town has not yet appeared in the case and no answer has been filed. Given the allegations in this Complaint, this is a case that is likely to stay in the news. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link