Articles Posted in Common Law Remedies

bloomberg.pngPartners Scott Holt, Barry Willoughby, and William Bowser recently co-authored Bloomberg BNA’s Corporate Practice Series on Noncompetition Agreements. The publication provides an in-depth review of the use and enforcement of noncompetition agreements, including practical tips for prosecuting and defending noncompete cases.

The publication is available through the Bloomberg BNA web site

Employers frequently confront the problem of theft or misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential, proprietary information by departing employees. While employers have an arsenal of legal weapons at their disposal to protect their most valuable business assets, it is critical that they take proactive steps to protect against the disclosure of important business information and prevent unfair competition. From a practical standpoint, failure to implement basic security measures makes it easier for an unethical employee or competitor to misappropriate confidential business information. From a legal perspective, absent efforts to preserve the secrecy of such information and avoid unfair competition, a court is unlikely to respond favorably to an employer request for relief.Delaware

Trade Secret Protection

Delaware, like most states, has enacted the “Uniform Trade Secrets Act” providing employers with legal protection for trade secret information even in the absence of contractual agreements with employees. While many people may believe that “trade secret” status is only afforded to scientific data such as the formula for Coke, in reality, trade secret protection is available for a much broader array of information. The statutory definition for a trade secret is “information” that “derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means, by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.” To be protected by the statute, the information must be “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”

Trade secret protection is available to business information other than scientific data such as formulas and chemical compounds. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act specifically extends protection to a “compilation,” “program,” “method,” “technique,” or “process” that has independent economic value to a company arising from its secrecy.

Customer lists may be subject to trade secret protection if the employer expended substantial resources and time in developing information that is not generally known to the public or competitors. Further, even if the customer list itself is not trade secret, information the employer compiled as part of its marketing efforts may be protected. For example, the courts have found that a “rankings report” kept by company sales representatives concerning the amount of sales to clients and ranking the company’s customers by sales volume is sensitive financial information that may be subject to trade secret protection. Likewise, while an idea such as linking a savings program to an affinity group may not be a trade secret, the means by which such a program is implemented may be.

Even if business information does not meet the definition of a “trade secret,” it still may be confidential, proprietary information subject to other legal protections.

Computer Fraud Act

Employers have a potentially powerful weapon to combat improper access and misappropriation of electronic data and information stored on a computer. We are all familiar with cases in which an unethical employee downloads company electronic information to a thumb drive for later use and/or sends such information via email to his or her personal computer in preparation for leaving employment and competing with their employer. The federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) may be used to hold employees liable both civilly and criminally for such misconduct. Although the CFAA was originally passed to target computer “hackers”, not disloyal employees, some courts have applied the statute to employee misconduct. The CFAA also has criminal provisions. For example, former news anchor, Larry Mendete, plead guilty under the CFAA to intentionally accessing the private email account of his former co-anchor, Alycia Lane.

Delaware has a state counterpart to the CFAA.  The Misuse of Computer System Information Statute, 11 Del. C. § 935 et seq., makes it a crime to knowingly access a computer system without authorization. The statute prohibits not only the unauthorized copy and disclosure of electronic data, but the knowing deletion of data from a computer system.  The statute also has a civil component to this law which allows an aggrieved party to bring an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery for injunctive relief, restitution, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees.  For more information see our earlier blog post on this statute.

Common Law Claims

There are many other legal claims that the company may assert to protect its business assets if an employee improperly uses or discloses its confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information. Employees who are given access to such information may be treated as fiduciaries with a duty of loyalty to protect it from disclosure during their employment. A competitor who knowingly participates in improper disclosure may be charged with “aiding or abetting” a breach of fiduciary duty or illegally participating in a civil conspiracy. In addition, a competitor who unfairly competes through the acquisition and intended use of such information may be sued for tortious inference with contract or business relations.

Contractual Protections

Aside from statutory and common law protections, there are contractual safeguards available to help employers stop the inappropriate disclosure of the business information and prevent unfair competition. At a minimum, all employers should consider requiring key employees who have access to confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information to sign Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements. A company may legally require employees who have access to confidential, proprietary information to sign such an agreement. If drafted properly, such agreements have “teeth” when enforcement action is necessary. Confidentiality agreements may provide not only for emergency injunctive relief, but also for an award of damages from the improper disclosure of company information. Importantly, in appropriate circumstances, Delaware courts will enforce a provision in a confidentiality agreement providing that an individual who violates its terms is subject to paying the company’s attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing enforcement action.

For certain classes of employees, employers should consider broader contractual protections beyond a simple confidentiality agreement. Employees in sales and marketing or high-level management positions may be in a position to seriously damage the company’s business if they leave to work for a competitor. A non-competition agreement or restrictive covenant is valid and enforceable in Delaware so long as the agreement is not overly broad and is necessary to protect the company’s legitimate economic interests.

Delaware courts will generally enforce a non-competition agreement that is reasonable in geographic and temporal scope. The non-competition agreement must contain a geographic restriction tied to the areas where the company does business and where the employee works to establish that the Company has a legitimate business interest in restricting competition in those locations. Delaware courts, like most courts throughout the United States, also require that the restriction against competition have a reasonable time limit. Typically, a Delaware court will find a two-year restriction to be reasonable.

Since enforcement of a non-competition agreement prohibits an employee from working in a specified field in competition with his or her former employer, courts are careful to balance the equities. The court will consider the employer’s reasonable business needs versus the impact of the enforcement of such agreements on an individual’s ability to earn a livelihood. Upon a showing of a need for such relief, however, courts will enforce non-competition agreements and may even issue an order prohibiting a former employee from working for a competitor.

An alternative to a non-competition agreement is a “non-solicitation” agreement. Non-solicitation agreements are narrower than non-competition agreements. A non-solicitation agreement restricts a former employee from soliciting a company’s clients or customers. Like a non-competition agreement, a non-solicitation agreement must include a reasonable time limit. Instead of a geographic limitation, however, a non-solicitation agreement may restrict an employee from solicitation or business dealings with certain customers such as those with whom the employee had direct contact or about whom the employee received confidential information. Non-solicitation clauses may also include potential customers or prospects. Of course, as with other contractual provisions, careful drafting is necessary to ensure the enforceability of such contractual restraints.

In appropriate cases, employers may include confidentiality, non-competition, and non-solicitation clauses in the same agreement. As a rule of thumb, the need for such protections and the likelihood of successful enforcement increases with the amount of access an employee has to valuable business information and his or her level in the organization. In addition, employee misconduct, such as misappropriation of a customer list or other sensitive information, increases the likelihood that a court will award relief to the employer.

Posted by Barry M. Willoughby

Hiring an employee who is subject to a non-competition agreement can be a risky venture.  In many instances, the new employer can find itself on the receiving end of an expedited lawsuit along with the new hire.  But there are a few simple measures new employers can take to reduce the chances of being named as a co-defendant in a lawsuit. 

First, make certain your new hire has “clean hands” before commencing employment.  This means that all documents, computers, PDAs, flash drives, and any other property arguably belonging to the former employer has been returned intact.  The employee needs to be aware that erasing hard drives and databases before returning equipment (even if inadvertent) can often result in a negative ruling from the court or even a spoliation finding.  Once completed, the employee should confirm in writing that all property in his possession has been returned to his former employer. 

Next, make sure the potential new hire does not engage in competition while still at his old job.  In Delaware, it is generally permissible to make preparations to compete while still employed, which would include discussions with other companies about possible employment opportunities.  But employees often cross the line when these discussions develop into actual competition, and if there’s evidence the new employer encouraged these acts, it may open the door for a civil conspiracy claim. 

Finally, before the employee commences work, there should be a written agreement confirming that the employee has returned all property to his former employer, that he will not to disclose any protected confidential information or trade secrets, and address any limitations that will be placed on his job functions and/or ability to solicit past / current customers.  This last point will likely require some analysis of the employee’s agreement not to compete and a decision about which provisions are and are not enforceable.

While new employers cannot totally eliminate the risk of being named a co-defendant in a noncompetition lawsuit, the above steps should help lower the risk associated with hiring a new employee.  These steps also will prove invaluable should the employer have to defend against a noncompete case.

Much of the non-compete litigation occurs in Delaware because the parties (usually the former employee and his/her former employer) have consented to the jurisdiction of Delaware courts in the underlying contract. But in many of these cases, obtaining personal jurisdiction over third parties such as the former employee’s new employer may pose difficulties. If there’s evidence of a conspiracy between the defendants, however, one consideration is using the Conspiracy Theory to establish personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant.

When determining if it has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, a Delaware court conducts a two-part analysis. First, it considers whether the defendant’s conduct satisfies the state’s long-arm statute. Second, it considers whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. The Conspiracy Theory is used to satisfy the long-arm statute when one defendant has engaged in conduct within the State that satisfies the long-arm statute, but the other defendant has not. In other words, the Conspiracy Theory is used to impute one defendant’s conduct to the other, thereby obtaining jurisdiction over both.

The standard for establishing personal jurisdiction using this theory not easy. A plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a conspiracy existed; (2) the defendant was a member of that conspiracy; (3) a substantial act or substantial effect in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in the forum state; (4) the defendant knew or had reason to know of the act in the forum state or that acts outside the forum state would have an effect in the forum state; and (5) the act in, or effect on, the forum state was a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.

This method of establishing jurisdiction was recently asserted in the case of LeCroy Corp. v. Hallberg, 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 178. In that case, Hallberg left his employment with LeCroy to work for a competitor, in violation of the non-competition provisions of his employment contract with LeCroy. The competitor was incorporated in Delaware, so the courts had jurisdiction over it, but the Hallberg had never lived or worked in Delaware. In order to obtain jurisdiction over Hallberg, the employer tried to establish a conspiracy between Hallberg and his new employer, in order to impute the employer’s tortious conduct in Delaware to Hallberg.

In this case, the tortious conduct on which LeCroy’s claim of conspiracy was based was the competitor’s decision to dissolve a predecessor business established in Colorado, and reincorporate the business in Delaware in order to hide the competitor’s connection with several of LeCroy’s former employees, all of whom were subject to non-competition agreements. However, the Court found that LeCroy failed to prove conspiracy because it could not demonstrate element (4), above. The Court held that Hallberg was hired after the competitor reincorporated in Delaware, thus there was no reason to assume that Hallberg knew of the reincorporation in Delaware. Based on its holding, the Court ordered that Hallberg be dismissed as a defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.

As the Halberg case suggests, obtaining jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant using the Conspiracy Theory has its challenges. It is narrowly construed and will require more exacting factual allegations to withstand a motion to dismiss. Still, the theory can be a viable alternative for establishing personal jurisdiction where the facts suggest a conspiracy between the defendants, and where one or more defendants lacks contacts with Delaware.

Thumbnail image for topsecret_br69.jpgThe doctrine of inevitable disclosure protects confidential information and trade secrets in situations where a former employee will inevitably disclose or use the information in his or her new employment, even absent bad faith. The principle behind this doctrine is that an employee who has knowledge of his former employer’s trade secrets will inevitably disclose this information to his new employer resulting in an unfair business advantage. In asserting a claim under this doctrine, companies may seek to enjoin a former employee from working for a competitor, even if the employee had no existing covenant not to compete.

The inevitable disclosure doctrine has been applied on a number of occasions by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The applicability of the doctrine was first acknowledged in E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. American Potash & Chem. Corp., 200 A.2d 428 (Del. Ch. 1964). In E.I. DuPont, the Chancery Court considered whether a defendant could be enjoined from working on the development of a chloride process related to the manufacture of TiO2 pigments. In Chancellor Seitz’s words, “I have no doubt but that the court is entitled to consider, in judging whether an abuse of confidence is involved, the degree to which disclosure of plaintiff’s trade secrets is likely to result from the circumstances surrounding Hirsch’s employment by Potash. The defendants say that a finding of ‘inevitability’ would be no more than a ‘prophecy’ here. Nonetheless, in the context of determining whether a threat disclosure exists, it is but a finding as to the probable future consequences of a course of voluntary action undertaken by the defendants. Courts are frequently called upon to draw such conclusions based on a weighing of the probabilities, and while a conclusion that a certain result will probably follow may not ultimately be vindicated, courts are nonetheless entitled to decide or ‘predict’ the likely consequences arising from a given set of facts and to grant legal remedies on that basis. I am satisfied that the degree of probability of disclosure, whether amounting to an inevitability or not, is a relevant factor to be considered in determining whether a ‘threat’ of disclosure exists.”
Continue reading

A mass exodus of employees from a company often results in the employees joining a competitor or starting up a competing business. Often the employees do not leave empty handed, and involve a concerted effort to use the company’s confidential or proprietary information to obtain an unfair competitive advantage. Such acts may give rise to a common law claim of civil conspiracy.

To be successful on a civil conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must usuallys show that two or more persons engaged in an unlawful act done in furtherance of the conspiracy and some form of actual damages. The court will require that there be some underlying wrongful act, such as a tort or a statutory violation. In Delaware, a breach of contract is not an underlying wrong that can give rise to a civil conspiracy claim.

One of the advantages of a civil conspiracy claim is it provides recourse against parties who may not have participated in the initial wrongful act, but nonetheless participated in the conspiracy. This is significant since each conspirator is jointly and severally liable for the acts of co-conspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Civil conspiracy claims have led to the award of injunctive relief in the Court of Chancery. Most recently, in Zrii, LLC v. Wellness Acquisition Group, Inc., the Court of Chancery awarded a preliminary injunction against various individuals after finding a their former employer had a reasonable likelihood of success in proving the existence of an unlawful act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
Continue reading

Contact Information