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

Each state generally has some type of consumer protection or trade protection law that seeks to prohibit and punish unfair conduct and deceptive acts in trade or commerce.   Most states, including Connecticut, model their laws after section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.  Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts and unfair competition in the marketplace. 

Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act (commonly referred to as CUTPA by attorneys and judges), is codified at Connecticut General Statutes section 42-110b.  CUTPA states, in relevant part, that:

(a) No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

(b) It is the intent of the legislature that . . . the courts of this state shall be guided by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts to Section 5 . . . .

(c) The commissioner may . . .establish by regulation acts, practices or methods which shall be deemed to be unfair or deceptive. . . Such regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the federal trade commission and the federal courts . . .

(d) It is the intention of the legislature that this chapter be remedial and be so construed.

CUTPA's provisions can be far reaching for businesses and consumers.  For example, under section 42-110g, attorneys who successfully prove a CUTPA violation in Connecticut business litigation may be able to recover attorneys fees, punitive damages, and costs for their clients.  CUTPA's provisions also provide for the ability of attorneys to bring class action lawsuits in Connecticut for unfair or deceptive acts. Additionally, courts can order injunctive relief or other equitable remedies for CUTPA violations.

CUTPA's provisions may be enforced by the various State's Attorneys and the Attorney General, such as the AG's recent lawsuit against Net Health over its loss or exposure of personal identifiers (date of birth, social security number) of Connecticut residents.  Private citizens and businesses may also bring actions for unfair competition or deceptive acts under CUTPA, including class action lawsuits such as the recent case against AT&T over Internet access.

To establish a violation of CUTPA, attorneys in Connecticut have to prove that their clients suffered "any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110g. . ." Generally speaking, this requirement means Connecticut attorneys have to show that their clients sustained damages as a result of an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce. 

To determine what constitutes an unfair or deceptive act, Connecticut courts specifically refer back to the Federal Trade Commission and what is commonly referred to as the "cigarette rule."  The cigarette rule defines what type of conduct may qualify as unfair and deceptive justifying an award of compensatory or punitive damages.   This rule dates back to 1964 and comes from legislative policy making by the Federal Trade Commission concerning requirements for warning labels on cigarette packages. 

 The three prongs of the cigarette rule are as follows:

1. whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise-in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness;
2. whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous;
3. whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, [competitors or other business persons]. . . .

All three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness. A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.

It is important to note that not every act or conduct that might seem to fit the criteria will be a violation of CUTPA. For example, generally speaking, mere negligent acts or simple breaches of a contract do not constitute unfair or deceptive acts under CUTPA. It is also important to note that some conduct automatically violates CUTPA or is considered a per se violation, such as failure to follow the Home Improvement Act or to register a trade name.

There are many nuances to CUTPA and the above is only a brief summary. Any business or consumer trying to determine whether they were damaged by conduct constituting a violation of CUTPA should contact a business litigation attorney or the Attorney General's office.

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

Here is a quick summary of another of the so called "business torts" in Connecticut known as breach of fiduciary duty.  A fiduciary duty can arise in a number of contexts in business including relationships with partners, lawyers, accountants, trustees, investment advisers, brokers and employees.  When one party in a relationship is a fiduciary, it requires the party to act with the utmost good faith, fair dealing and loyalty. 

Many times, breach of fiduciary lawsuits are filed in Connecticut when the relationship breaks down over lost or mismanaged money.  Frequently, business partners are also found to be fiduciaries with respect to each other.  A fiduciary relationship may be formed when the following factors exist:

• unique degree of trust and confidence between the parties
• one party has superior knowledge and skill
• the party with superior knowledge has a duty to represent the interests of the other part

Connecticut's common law on breach of fiduciary duty law is flexible in that it will not exclude new situations, but is also clear that not all business relationships are fiduciary relationships. For example, courts will not recognize a fiduciary relationship for parties that are dealing at arm's length for transactions.  This is because the relationship lacks a dominance by one party or dependence by the other, or the lack of a special relationship.

The legal recognition of a fiduciary relationship is very significant in a lawsuit in Connecticut.  If a plaintiff proves that a fiduciary relationship exists, the standard and burden of proof changes.  A plaintiff has to prove that a fiduciary duty exists by a preponderance of the evidence. Once established, the burden shifts to the fiduciary as a defendant to prove good faith and fair dealing.  Further, the fiduciary must prove good faith by clear and convincing evidence.

Because of the burden shifting and higher standard, fiduciary cases are often won or lost on the legal characterization of the relationship. 

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

The short answer is yes, a business does need a contract, also known as a "non-compete agreement," to prevent a former employee from fairly competing in business once the employee resigns.  Even with a written agreement, there are limitations on non-compete agreements because they are viewed as a restraint of trade.  To be enforceable, the restrictions in the agreement must be reasonable in time, scope, and geography. The restrictions also must be reasonable in relation to legitimate business interests you are seeking to protect.   

A poorly drafted agreement, or no agreement at all, can leave a business with little legal recourse to stop a former employee from fair competition once the employee resigns.  Simply put, the law in Connecticut permits fair competition upon resignation.  However, the lack of a written agreement does not give free license to employees to unfairly compete in all circumstances. 

For example, what about an employee that starts competing against your business without your knowledge while continuing to work for you?  Is this fair competition that should be freely permitted?  Depending on the circumstances, this type of conduct can be actionable in a civil case for damages.  The actionable conduct is breach of the employee's common law duty of loyalty, which exists without a written agreement in certain circumstances.  There are also statutes in Connecticut that can protect businesses in certain situations that do not require contracts such as unauthorized computer access or misappropriation of trade secrets.   

I just read a story about a recent case that demonstrated some of the legal issues involved when there are no contracts in place with former employees.  According to the small business report by Carlye Adler of CNN, Charter Oak Lending, located in in Danbury Connecticut, lost a trial against several former employees who allegedly left to work for a larger company, CTX Mortgage.  Charter Oak alleged it lost more than a third of its business and a million dollars in fees after a sudden departure of 10 employees to CTX. The litigation lasted four years and ended with a defense verdict for the former employees. Charter Oak is appealing the decision. 

It appears that the decision against Charter Oak was based in part on the lack of contracts and the categorization of the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.   The Trade Secrets Blog by Womble Carlyle picked up the story and had an interesting take focused on pure versus unfair competition.  The blog post supports the legal concept that a line can be crossed turning pure competition into unfair business. 

Charter Oak's appeal of this case will be interesting to follow.  The outcome will likely depend on what evidence existed at trial to demonstrate unfair competition prior to the employees' departure along with consideration of the duty of loyalty.  The takeaway is that it is always better to have written agreements to protect your business' customers, client lists, and confidential information.  However, the lack of such an agreement will not always give free license to former employees to unfairly compete in all circumstances.   A close examination of the facts of each case must be undertaken to consider common law and statutory remedies that do not necessarily require agreements. 

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

In the Business Torts category of this blog, I recently covered the basic law in Connecticut concerning interference with business relationships.  Today's post concerns another business tort known as "defamation" and how it intersects with the growing use of social networking sites.

There already have been several lawsuits for defamation arising out of use of social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook. For example,  The California Defamation Blog lists several celebrities involved in defamation cases, including Courtney Love who was sued by a fashion designer for defamation after a series of derogatory Twitter posts by Love.  Craig Kanalley of Chicagonow.com reported that a property owner sued a tenant for disparaging Twitter comments. The Chicago Tribune recently reported on a defamation lawsuit brought by a mother and her son after a phony Facebook profile was created showing the son was a racist.   

Should Connecticut businesses be concerned?  Clearly, the type and variety of these suits are on the rise. In legal circles, these type of claims have a category of their own called "cyber slander" or "internet defamation."  Given the popularity in use of social networking sites, and the ease in which statements can be broadcast to millions, it is safe to  predict that more defamation cases will be filed in the future. 

Connecticut businesses can be affected by defamation suits involving social networking sites and the internet in a number of ways, such as:

• Employees making comments about a competitor
• Employees making comments about supervisors or co-employees
• Employees making comments about the company's products
• Competitors making derogatory comments about the company
• Phony Facebook or Twitter profiles
• Derogatory comments about the company 

In Connecticut, defamation encompasses defamation by spoken (slander) and written (libel) words. In general, to raise a proper claim for basic defamation, a plaintiff must show that:

1. A defamatory statement was made
2. The statement identified the plaintiff to a third person
3. The statement was published to a third person
4. The plaintiff's reputation suffered injury as a result of the defamatory statement

In regards to businesses, there is also a defamation claim sometimes referred to as "commercial disparagement" or "trade libel."  For this type of claim, a plaintiff must prove disparagement of a business' goods or services by falsehoods published or communicated to a third person.

With the ease of publication to millions over the internet, it is easy to see how someone might publish a defamatory comment whether it be on a blog, social networking site, or website.   Chances are, if you are in business, either you, someone who works for you, or a competitor has commented about the business in cyberspace.

For a business, the best way to avoid a lawsuit for defamation as a result of employee use of sites such as Twitter and Facebook is to have a written policy that governs employee use.  The details of each policy will differ depending on your business, but clearly the policy should prohibit any defamatory or derogatory comments about the business, employees, or competitors.

In situations where a competitor or customer disparaged your business' products or services, a business may want to consider legal action and determine if grounds exist to issue a cease and desist letter, a take down letter, or initiate a lawsuit.  Internet defamation can ruin a business' reputation overnight and should be addressed immediately regardless of whether the business pursues legal action.   

For a business, whether legal action is taken may depend on the severity of the disparagement and the damage done.  In some cases, a cease and desist or retraction is a practical solution especially when a defamation suit would bring added attention to the matter.  In other cases, legal action, such as a defamation lawsuit, may be required to stop ongoing damage or serious problems.

Regardless of the situation, Connecticut businesses should, at a minimum, monitor cyberspace for defamatory comments.  Comments that might lead to a lawsuit could come from your own employees, a competitor, or a disgruntled customer.  A written policy is a good way to minimize risks of employee comments.  As for competitors and customers, Google alerts is a good way to monitor use of a business' name on the Internet. The alert will send you an email every time your business name is found on the internet. 

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

Connecticut has taken center stage as lead plaintiff in round two against six power companies for public nuisance over global warming.  In Connecticut v. American Electrical Power Co., eight States brought a lawsuit to stop ongoing contributions to global warming.  The States brought the suit under a theory of common law nuisance.  Although the case was dismissed at the trial level, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision and held that the States can pursue their claims for federal common law nuisance.

This case has been watched closely ever since it was filed in 2004 and argued in 2006.  The court of appeals decision allowing the case to proceed now has caused some very different reactions amongst attorneys, environmentalists and business leaders.   

The Global Climate Law Blog offered its comments on the decision noting that the case is long from over and future battles in the case will likely involve causation.  Hannah McCrea of The Grist noted  in a very detailed review of the case that it was a historic ruling to "be celebrated and utilized by environmentalists."  

Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (representing 3 million businesses) issued this statement claiming the decision will "further line the pockets of trial lawyers."  She opined that the decision to permit public nuisance claims to go forward could lead to mass tort claims against businesses for contributions to global warming.  Seth Jaffe an environmental attorney with Foley Hoag offered a good legal review concluding that a number of defenses remain in the case for the power companies but environmental plaintiffs relying on nuisance claims may get new life from the decision.

My own take is that the case represents a fascinating intersection of law, politics, and activism surrounding the global climate change debate.   The case is being dissected all over the country with predictions of mass tort actions against businesses, congressional legislation, and new EPA regulations.  My own prediction is that the litigation appears far from over and an appeal to the United States Supreme Court is likely.  Any adverse impact to Connecticut businesses for nuisance claims is not at all clear at this point.  

• 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

Unfortunately, all too often business competitors resort to unfair and improper tactics to gain an advantage in business.  A common example occurs when a competitor maliciously or intentionally interferes with a company's contracts or business relationships.   When this occurs, businesses have to consider whether a legal remedy is available.

In Connecticut, courts have long recognized the business litigation claim of tortious interference with contractual relations as an available remedy for this type of conduct.  To be successful against a competitor in a lawsuit for this claim, a business must prove three essential elements:

• Existence of a contract or beneficial business relationship
• Knowledge of the relationship
• Intentional interference with the contract or business relationship
• Actual loss or damage 

Upon first consideration, tortious interference with a contract might seem to apply to many business competitors.  However, Connecticut courts require more than mere interference for a successful lawsuit.  In particular, not every act of interference is actionable in court. 

In Connecticut, a business must also prove that the interference was "improper" or with an "improper motive."   A business can prove that interference with a contract was improper by demonstrating any of the following:

• Fraud or misrepresentation
• Intimidation
• Malice
• Other improper motive or means

Although the improper motive element is harder to prove, a successful claim could also result in an award of punitive damages.  Additionally, a business does not have to prove that the interference actually resulted in a breach of the contract or business relationship.

As such, if your business is dealing with a competitor that has crossed the line and resorted to fraud or unfair practices to harm your business, a lawsuit for tortious interference with contractual relationship is one of the available remedies in Connecticut.   

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

 A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit serves as reminder of the types of litigation that can arise from simply maintaining a website. Although the decision involved a dispute between two law firms, the facts could easily be related to competing businesses. 

The case involved Brayton Purcell, LLP, a California law firm that successfully sued another law firm for copyright infringement based on website content.   Brayton Purcell had copyright protection for its substantial website content on elder law.  According to the decision, a competitor law firm must have liked the content because the competitor copied the content verbatim for its own website.  This resulted in an undisclosed arbitration ruling in favor of Brayton Purcell.

Any business with a website should consider having a legal review done to determine if potential problems exist with the website's content.  Facing a lawsuit over a website is one the problems I discussed in a recent lecture on 5 Technology Bombs That Can  Sink Your Business.

There are many ways that a website can lead to litigation.  Stanley Jaskiewicz authored an excellent article for E-Commerce Law & Strategy featured on Law.com related to "clearing" rights to publish content on websites.  He cited a simple example of how a business website can infringe a copyright by merely copying and pasting a photograph from one website to the business' website.  In the process, the business might infringe the rights of the original photographer and the website owner.

A basic legal compliance review for a website can avoid this type of problem.  It starts with a risk assessment of the website and its content, including a review for potential claims involving: 

• Copyright & Trademark infringement.  Copying from the the look and feel, content, and slogans from another website are some of the ways you can run afoul of copyright and trademark laws.
• Defamation & Disparagement.  Posting content that is defamatory or disparaging of a competitor could result in litigation because the statements could be viewed by millions.
• Unfair Trade Practices.  This type of claim is usually a tag along to some other actionable conduct.  This claim is often used to obtain an injunction or to recover greater damages and attorney's fees.
• False Advertising and Misrepresentation.  A website should be viewed no differently than traditional advertising.  False claims can bring lawsuits from consumers who make decisions based on website content.
• Domain Name Disputes.  These disputes often occur when two companies want a similar domain name.  Depending on a variety of facts, one company may have greater rights to use the name regardless of who registers the name first.

Here are some tips to avoid a lawsuit concerning website content: 

• Conduct a risk assessment.   This includes an audit and inventory of the website content.
• Obtain "clearance" rights. If any of your content might violate copyright or trademark laws, you should seek to obtain clearance to use the material.  This involves the concept of searching out property right holders or authors and seeking permission or paying for use of the content.  
• Avoid use of protected materials.  For example, do not copy another website verbatim as the law firm did in the California case.  This might seem like a no brainer but many people believe that anything posted on the Internet somehow loses its copyright and trademark protection. 
• Protect your content.  In the California case, it was noted that the law firm had copyrighted its online content.     The law firm also monitored for any other website copying its content by use of Copyscape website.  Copyscape allows a user to input a website address or specific page to search the web for plagiarism. 
• Cooperation or settlement.  Lawsuits involving property rights for website content usually begin with one website owner sending another a "cease and desist letter."  This is a demand that an owner take down infringing material.  One way to avoid a lawsuit is to simply agree and take down the material.  Alternatively, you might be able to reach an agreement for use of the material. 

The bottom line is that your business does not need the headache of a lawsuit over a website.  Taking caution from the beginning with website content can help eliminate the risk.

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