New Website and New Entry

www.smoothtransitionslawblog.com

Compensation Litigation - Bonuses Under the Microscope

Executive compensation is under attack. It's an easy target for politicians when $20 billion in bonuses were handed out while the economy was in free fall. New York AG Andrew Cuomo has indicated he may attempt to claw back bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch executives in late 2008 that came to light during John Thain's recent ouster from BofA. Some execs are even foregoing their 2008 bonus. If you're an executive in the US right now there are 2 things you should avoid, bonuses and private jet travel. This is especially true if your company has received federal bailout money.

So what can Cuomo do? Apparently the strategy is to attack the Merrill Lynch payments as untimely (they were paid in December as opposed to the normal January) and explore whether shareholders were misled concerning the payments, i.e. securities fraud. A class action has already been filed in the Southern District of New York regarding the BofA/Merrill merger where the 2008 bonuses will likely be scrutinized.

Obviously, publicly traded companies are under heightened scrutiny and standards, but what about private companies? In Texas, companies can choose from a number of business forms, the typical corporation, a partnership, a limited partnership, or even a limited liability company. Often times a limited partnership will have a corporation as its general partner. There are pros and cons for each choice, usually tax considerations drive the decision of what entity to use.

The officers of those entities will owe fiduciary duties to the entity and in some cases, like a general partnership, to their partners. Thus, unreasonable bonuses or compensation are actionable, like a publicly traded company, through a derivative lawsuit or in some cases through a direct lawsuit against the offender usually based on a breach of fiduciary duty claim. The typical defense is the assertion of the business judgment rule, a topic for another day, but what is sound business judgment in these economic times differs from what was acceptable during upswings in the economy.

Does the payment pass the smell test? Payments should not be out of the ordinary. They should be consistent with historical payments tied to personal and company performance criteria. In many cases payments will be contractually mandated. In the case of a private company it would be wise to make sure other owners are informed of any bonuses paid out and the basis for such payments. In other words, avoid any claims of surprise. No matter what, it smells when a company hemorrhaging cash pays big bonuses.

Disclaimer

IBM/Papermaster Settle Non-Compete Suit

As with most lawsuits, the previously discussed IBM/Mark Papermaster lawsuit has settled.

Papermaster will not go to work with Apple until April and must certify to IBM he is not using any of its trade-secrets in the course and scope of his employment. Bottom-line, most non-compete cases are resolved after an injunction hearing (like this case) and after a significant amount of attorneys' fees are expended by both sides.

Non-Competes and College Football

When University of Arkansas Coach Bobby Petrino suggested non-compete agreements for assistant coaches might be on the horizon, the irony was apparent. Petrino left Louisville for the NFL's Atlanta Falcons in December 2007 then bolted 13 games into his tenure with Atlanta for Arkansas. Nevertheless, Petrino was upset defensive coach Lorenzo Ward was leaving for South Carolina. Petrino's own contract restricts him from accepting employment with a South Eastern Conference school in the western division until 2012, but non-competes are not common for assistants. This week Petrino announced the hiring of a new assistant coach with no mention of a non-compete.

The enforceability of non-compete agreements varies from state to state. Would an assistant coach non-compete be enforceable in Texas? Texas non-competes must comply with Section 15.50 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.

Typically an employment based non-compete is used to prevent former employees from using company trade-secrets in a competing venture. What would the trade secret be for a coach? Strategies and plays are evident during every game. There is no secret Coke-like formula, though I'm sure a creative lawyer could find something to hang their client's hat on for purposes of filing suit. Mark Cuban claimed former coach Don Nelson used Mavericks' secrets when the Warriors defeated his team in the first round of the 2006 playoffs.

For now, Petrino will have to get used to assistant coaches leaving. Of course, Lorenzo Ward didn't leave his team during the middle of the season.

Clients, Competitors, and Employers are Watching Facebook

Chances are you or someone you know is on Facebook, MySpace, or LinkedIn. Google yourself and you'll probably see a LinkedIn or Facebook biography. Potential employers and recruiters will see the same information during the hiring process.

When I prepare for a deposition I always do basic Internet research on a witness. It's probably a safe assumption that business prospects and competitors are doing the same thing. This type of screening is cheap, quick, and turns up all sorts of information from previous employment, education, civic involvement, and even your time in the neighborhood fun run.

The reality is the Internet now documents all aspects of our lives. An Internet biography is being updated in real time for each of us and has a wide range of content. Social networking tools are wonderful in theory, but they contribute to our Internet biography.

There is no reason to quit updating your Facebook status. But as with anything in writing, assume it will be seen by all, not just your Facebook friends. Welcome to the reality of Web 2.0.

Disclaimer

Recruiters: Poach at your peril.

Most placement professionals try to stay away from taking employees from their company clients and in many instances it is prohibited by contract. More importantly, it can be bad business.

In a lawsuit filed in New York, JP Morgan Chase Bank v. IDW Group, Inc., JP Morgan brought suit against a firm that previously provided placement services and allegedly poached JP Morgan employees. It claims this was in violation of its contract with IDW and a breach of fiduciary duty. Here's blogger Kenneth Vanko's take on the case. It seems hard to believe that a business relationship evolved into a fiduciary duty relationship (very difficult to prove in Texas) but nevertheless, it is a claim.

Assuming there is no contractual provision in place, there is little a client can do to prevent a placement professional from soliciting its employees. Nevertheless, do you really want to have a reputation for poaching? Obviously, the facts and circumstances will vary and require individual analysis. Remember, there is little barrier to filing a lawsuit, basically a lawyer and a filing fee, and an irate client may seek legal redress like JP Morgan.

Disclaimer

The Inevitable Disclosure of Trade Secrets Under Texas Law

Commentators have described inevitable disclosure as the following:

There are circumstances in which trade secrets inevitably will be used or disclosed, even if the defendant swears that he or she will keep the information confidential. Courts applying the doctrine have differed over its reach and the circumstances required for its application, but, generally speaking, the doctrine applies when a defendant has had access to trade secrets and then defects to the trade secret owner's competition to perform duties so similar that the court believes that those duties cannot be performed without making use of trade secrets relating to the previous affiliation.

Linda K. Stevens, Trade Secrets & Inevitable Disclosure, 36 TORT & INS. L. J. 917, 929 (Summer 2001).

Some form of an inevitable disclosure argument is usually made when a Plaintiff is attempting to obtain a temporary restraining order or injunction to enforce a non-compete. The Texas Supreme Court has never recognized the doctrine.

In 1999, the Dallas Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion stated: "this Court has recognized that a former employee may be enjoined from using or disclosing the former employer's confidential or proprietary information if the employee is in a situation where use or disclosure is probable." Conley v. DSC Communs. Corp., No. 05-98-01051-CV, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 1321 (Tex. App. Dallas --- 1999, no pet.)(not published).

That opinion stated the Dallas court was not adopting the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Whether "probable disclosure" is actually a viable theory under Texas law remains unresolved by the the Texas Supreme Court.

Read David Knight's analysis of a recent Ohio inevitable disclosure case here.

Disclaimer

The Employee Wins: California Supreme Court Non-Compete Opinion

California lawyer Scott Pearce provides an analysis of Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, a 2008 California Supreme Court Case addressing non-compete agreements.




Disclaimer

A doctor's departure.

The departure of a doctor from a medical practice group is not always amicable. In some situations, the medical records of a departing doctor's patients may be held hostage. The Texas Occupations Code and Texas Medical Board Rules (located in the Texas Administrative Code) both contain provisions addressing medical records.

Chapter 159 of the Occupations Code addresses the confidentiality and release of patient records. (159.002(2) & 159.005)

Texas Medical Board Rules Section 165.5 requires that the departing physician post a sign in her office informing the patients of the departure, publish notice in the newspaper, and send letters to all patients. Section 165.5(c) prevents other physicians from preventing the departing doctor from posting a sign or withholding contact information for patients.

A departing doctor should instruct her patients to fill out appropriate releases so the patients' records are transferred to the doctor's new office. The departing doctor should also follow all departure requirements contained in the Texas Medical Board Rules.

Disclaimer

Nebraska Non-Solicitation Case

Happy holidays to you and your family.

Below is a link to an article written by Seattle attorney Jill Pugh regarding a Nebraska Court of Appeals opinion affirming the enforceability of a non-solicitation agreement. Aon Consulting, Inc. sued to enforce the agreement against a former employee. The agreement was actually signed by the employee with a predecessor company that was acquired by Aon.

Here is a link to the opinion.

Here is a link to the blog.

Disclaimer

The Non-Compete Playbook: The Injunction Hearing

An injunction hearing in Texas state court is similar to a bench trial. Depending on the Court's preferences, both parties may offer opening and closing remarks. The party with the burden of proof on the injunction, in this case Company A, will offer its evidence and then Jordan James has the opportunity to offer any evidence she would like the court to consider. This may consist of deposition testimony, live testimony in the courtroom, and the offering of documents into evidence.

After presentation of the evidence, the Judge determines whether Company A is entitled to a temporary injunction. In the Company A/Jordan James dispute three individuals testified: James, her supervisor at Company A, and a law firm client of Company A's. The Court after considering the evidence, denied the injunction.

Disclaimer

Injunctions and the NFL

The use of injunctive relief has been discussed at length in this blog. Last week a federal judge in Minnesota issued an injunction preventing the National Football League from suspending several players for violation of its anti-doping policy including New Orleans Saint Deuce McAllister (pictured right). Until further ruling from the Court, McAllister and the other players may continue to play on Sunday. McAllister carried the ball one time yesterday in the Saints' victory over the Atlanta Falcons.

Disclaimer

The Non-Compete Playbook: Discovery

Picking up on the Company A/Jordan James dispute, Company A successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against James. The Court ordered James not to engage in any placement work and return all Company A documents in her possession. Furthermore, the Court ordered Company A to post a $5000 bond and set the preliminary injunction for hearing in ten days. Company A requested that the Court allow for limited discovery before the injunction hearing. The Court will allow Company A to take 1 deposition and permit the service of 10 requests for production. James is also permitted the same. So what are these type of discovery devices?

(1) The Deposition: Permits a party to ask an individual questions under oath. In cases where a party is a company, the opposing party can ask the company to designate a representative or representatives to testify on certain topics. A Court reporter transcribes the testimony under oath and in some instances, the deposition is videotaped. In Texas, a party is generally limited to 6 hours of deposition time for each deponent.

(2) Request for Production: Permits a party to request production of categories of documents. This also includes electronic discovery and could include the inspection of hard drives and other sources where electronic data may be maintained.

(3) Interrogatories: A party can force the other side to answer written questions under oath.

Parties may also conduct discovery on non-party witnesses. This may take the form of a deposition, document requests, and depositions on written questions.

Disclaimer

IBM v. Apple (Mark Papermaster)

Apple hired 26-year IBM veteran Mark Papermaster to run its hardware engineering team. IBM sued to enforce its two-year non-compete with Papermaster and obtained an injunction preventing him from going to work with Apple. The judge ordered that IBM post a 3 million-dollar bond. See the links below regarding the case:

news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20081104/bs_nf/62825

www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3785391/Papermaster+Fires+Back+in+IBMApple+Tussle.htm

Happy Thanksgiving!

Disclaimer

The Non-Compete Playbook: The TRO

Picking up on last week's entry, Company A has decided it will file a lawsuit against Jordan James in Dallas district court and seek a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). A TRO typically precedes a temporary injunction, but the grounds for relief are largely the same. Most TROs or injunctions are prohibitory in nature, meaning they prohibit a party from certain conduct. In some cases a TRO or injunction can request mandatory or affirmative conduct, such as the return of a customer list or other company documents.

In order to obtain a TRO, Company A must show:
1. A request for permanent relief;
2. A probable right to relief; and
3. A probable injury.

Within the allegations contained in the lawsuit, Company A must set forth why a TRO is necessary. Those allegations must be verified; meaning someone from Company A must swear that the factual matters set forth are true. Company A should be prepared to file a bond assuming that the TRO is granted. Also, in Dallas County, unless there are extenuating circumstances, James must be provided with two hours notice of Company A's intent to obtain the TRO.

In Dallas County, the lawyer will file the lawsuit and the clerk will put the newly filed lawsuit in a red jacket. The lawyer will take the red jacket to the judge who has been assigned the case. If the judge is not around, the lawyer will have to find another judge to consider the matter. There is no "live" evidence presented at a temporary restraining order hearing. The judge considers the lawsuit papers and the arguments of counsel.

Assuming the court finds in Company A’s favor, it will enter the TRO, set a bond amount, and set the injunction hearing for within 14 days. After the bond is posted, the clerk will then issue a citation for the original petition, notice of the TRO, and the TRO. At that point, Company A must serve James with the actual lawsuit and TRO. Once service has been completed, any violation of the TRO is treated like a contempt of court. In our next analysis, we will discuss the temporary injunction hearing.


Disclaimer

The Non-Compete Playbook: Preliminary Considerations

The Scenario
Assume the following: Jordan James, a successful legal recruiter employed at Company A has left to start her own placement firm. James signed a non-compete and non-solicitation with Company A and it is believed that James took her Microsoft Outlook contacts that contains all of her client information. What should Company A do and what should James anticipate?

Preliminary Considerations

(1) What are Company A's objectives? Is James worth the time and money from a cost/benefit analysis? Is James competing with Company A a threat? Even if not, has she taken information that is important to Company A? The reality is James will be able to compete some day against Company A but she should not be able to with information that does not belong to her or in violation of her contractual covenants.

(2) Is the non-compete enforceable? Before Company A instructs its lawyer to file a lawsuit and obtain a temporary restraining order (discussed in next week's entry), the next question should be what is the likelihood of enforceability of the non-compete? Obviously, no lawyer can predict what a Court can do, but they can give an educated guess. Hopefully, Company A already had this discussion with the lawyer who drafted the non-compete, but in many cases a lawyer wasn't involved and the law changes.

(3) Are James' documents in order? This includes any employment agreement, her employment file, and any company manuals that contain policies she is subject to. Can you capture (within the confines of the law) James' most recent communications (email/phone messages) with clients? Is there any evidence of James' contacting clients after her departure from Company A?

(4)What clients did James service? Were they serviced primarily by James or others at Company A? Would it make sense to contact the clients James worked with at Company A and let them know she has departed and who will be taking over her responsibilities? Not only will contacting them potentially protect business and preempt James, it is a means for developing allegations in a lawsuit and the basis for a temporary restraining order by finding out if she is talking to Company A clients and customers.

Next, the focus will be the filing of a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order.

Disclaimer

Merrill Lynch/B of A Non-Compete Update

Merrill Lynch and Bank of America appear to have resolved the non-compete issues discussed in my last entry:

To: All Merrill Lynch and BAI financial advisors

On October 24, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch announced transition programs for retaining financial advisors. Today, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch are pleased to announce a plan for the combined brokerage platform to be a member of the Protocol for Recruiting Brokers. This is one of the initial decisions coming out of the transition assessment process that is currently underway in preparation for Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch, which is scheduled to close on or after December 31, 2008, subject to regulatory and shareholder approvals.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated is currently a member of the protocol and will remain a member after the transaction closes. Merrill Lynch FAs will continue to be able to move between protocol member firms as permitted by the protocol.

Banc of America Investment Services, Inc. (BAI) is not currently a member of the protocol. The transition team is currently determining the specifics of how and when BAI will become a member of the protocol. Additional details will be communicated prior to the closing of the merger.

“Today’s announcement is one example of how we’re moving quickly to bring together Bank of America and Merrill Lynch,” said Keith Banks, president of Bank of America’s Global Wealth & Investment Management division. “This work will help ensure we maximize the benefits of this combination to better serve our clients.”

“We were one of three founding members of the recruiting protocol,” added Robert McCann, vice chairman and president, Global Wealth Management at Merrill Lynch. “Over the last few years, it has worked well for both our Financial Advisors and our clients."

If you have any questions, please contact your manager.

Disclaimer

Financial Advisors and Non-Competes in a Brave New World

After Bank of America ("BofA") purchased Merrill Lynch it put on the full-court press to keep one of Merrill's most important assets, its brokers. What has resulted is "The Advisor Transition Program ("ATP")", which provides financial incentives for brokers who remain following the merger. Reportedly, if a broker leaves during the seven year term of the ATP, he or she has to return all customer information and records and can be enjoined from disclosing such records. This provision has raised some questions.

Merrill and other large brokerage houses are members of the Protocol for Broker Recruiting (the "Protocol"). A district court in Iowa recently described the Protocol as an agreement between signatories that allows for "reciprocal 'poaching' of registered representatives and the registered representative's clients from the former firm, apparently on the assumption that they will gain as much as they lose in the exchange." Though a broker's employment agreement, at Merrill for example, may contain a non-disclosure, Merrill had essentially agreed not to enforce the provision as long as the departing broker moved to another Protocol member.

So when BofA took over, the question became whether it intended to enforce the terms of the non-disclosure contained in the ATP? Merrill stated last week, "The Advisor Transition Program does not change any of the rights or obligations that exist for our financial advisors under the [Protocol]. It has no impact on the Protocol. Suggestions to the contrary are likely the product of those who want to recruit our financial advisors to other firms."

So the answer for now appears to be that the Protocol is alive and well at Merrill. Nevertheless, as a non-signatory of the Protocol, BofA could potentially still enforce a non-compete or non-disclosure. The enforceability of the non-disclosure in the ATP will vary from state to state and what BofA will do on down the road remains to be seen. Today's news indicates that many brokers are unhappy with the ATP's financial incentives.

Disclaimer

Non-Competes and Tap Dancing

Once a Court enters an order upholding a non-compete, it can enforce its ruling through contempt. In some cases this can lead to jail time - even for a dance instructor (see the story below).

http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/982818.html

Texas Occupation Code Part 2

In a previous posting we discussed placement professionals' obligations under Chapter 2501 of the Texas Occupations Code. There is only one reported case addressing this provision. In Joseph Chris Personnel Services, Inc. v. Donna Rossi, et al., Joseph Chris, a real estate recruiter, sued former employees for alleged breach of employment contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Texas Occupations Code. Essentially, Joseph Chris claimed the Defendant employees started a competing recruiting company by taking information from the Joseph Chris database among other things. The Defendants did not reside in Texas.

Joseph Chris' occupations code claim was based on the provision that provides an employee of a personnel services company "may not disclose information about an applicant, an employer, and employment position, or the operation of the personnel service." The Court did not reach the merits of the claim because it ruled that the Texas Occupations Code did not apply to these non-Texas employees. There is no reported case that we are aware of, where a Plaintiff has alleged and a court has actually addressed whether a job candidate's service file as defined within the occupations code as trade secret under Texas criminal law would qualify as a trade secret under the standards set forth by the Texas Supreme Court and discussed in the October 6th entry.

Disclaimer