This case involves the alleged theft and misappropriation of tire designs. The plaintiff in this case, Tire Engineering and Distribution, LLC (“TED”), designs, develops and distributes highly specialized tires for underground mining vehicles. All of TED’s underground mining tires were designed and developed by the company’s founder and Chief Executive Officer, Jordan Fishman.

According to TED’s allegations, large tire companies, such as Goodyear and Michelin, abandoned the underground mining tire market and TED became the leader in this specialized area. TED took precautions to safeguard its one-of-a-kind designs and markings for its tires, its customer lists, pricing information, production schedules, and other proprietary and confidential trade secrets. Moreover, Fishman obtained copyrights for the tire designs, a trademark for one of the tire’s distinctive names, and had a patent pending for a special tire design.

TED’s trouble began when it employed a long-time acquaintance of Fishman, Sam Vance, as marketing manager to sell its underground mining tires. Vance was entrusted with access to all of TED’s trade secrets and other confidential business information that only Fishman and one other employee had access to. According to the plaintiff, Vance began working with TED’s China-based joint venture partner and tire manufacturer to cut plaintiff out of the business. The China-based company received manufacturing specifications for plaintiff’s tires and customer and pricing information, and stopped shipping tires for TED.

Moreover, Vance also met with principals of a Dubai-based international tire distributor in Richmond, Va and offered to provide plaintiff’s customer lists, pricing information and the blueprints for molds of the tires. Within a year, the Dubai company was distributing an almost full line of tires using the stolen designs and other proprietary information.

We’ve previously discussed the issue of employee theft of trade secrets on Virginia Business Law Update. As we noted, misappropriation of trade secrets cases are often brought not only against the former employee who took the trade secrets but also against the company who hired the employee and may have benefited from use of the trade secret – as was done in this case. The plaintiffs in this matter also separately pursued a case against Vance in Florida and prevailed. But, unfortunately for TED, this judgment was vacated on jurisdictional grounds since Vance never lived in Florida. Now, Vance is living in China, which makes collection of any monies from him appear unlikely.

In Tony Fox v. Portico Reality Services Office, a former foreman at Portico’s Manassas, Virginia office alleged he was treated differently from other non-African-American employees. During his employment with Portico, he claimed that he was the subject of numerous offensive racial remarks, was not given a regularly-scheduled pay raise like other employees, and was eventually discriminatorily fired from his job.

Portico requested summary dismissal of the discrimination claim on the basis that it was a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of NANA Regional Corporation, an Alaskan Native Corporation. Certain groups and entities, such as Indian tribes, private membership clubs and Alaska Native Corporations are not considered to be “employers’ under Title VII’s statutory definition, and thus, are not subject to its prohibitions. Alaska Native Corporations play special roles in controlling lands and funds for Alaskan Natives, and the underlying purpose of its exception was to permit hiring favoritism toward Alaska Natives without violating Title VII.

Here, Portico is an Alaska limited liability company, but with its principal place of business in Virginia. Portico’s sole member, Qivliq LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NANA Development Corporation. NANA Development is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NANA Regional Corporation - the Native Corporation. In interpreting the statute narrowly, the Court ruled that the Native Corporation exception applies to subsidiaries only where the Native Corporation directly owns the subsidiary.

It is important to note that Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provides a separate and independent basis for relief for race discrimination in private employment, contains no similar exception for Alaska Native Corporations. Thus, even Native Corporations and their direct subsidiaries may be held liable under this statute.
 

The new rules seek to promote uniformity in the roles of both courts. A fundamental change is the requirement that petitions for appeal to either court requires “assignments of error.” Previously, “assignments of error” were only required for appeal petitions to the Virginia Supreme Court. The chief function of such an assignment is to identify errors made by the circuit court with reasonable certainty so that the court and opposing counsel can consider and address points on which an appellant seeks reversal of a judgment. They also enable the parties to determine which portions of the trial record should be included in the joint appendix. Revisions also included changes in the form and appearance of the rules to make them more user-friendly.

The new rules will take effect on July 1, 2010.
 

The bid by General Excavation, Inc. (GEI) for the road-improvement contract worth approximately $20 million was one of seven rejected by the City. After the City declined to award the contract to anyone, GEI filed suit pursuant to the Virginia Public Procurement Act and the City’s own purchasing manual alleging that the City’s action was done solely to avoid awarding GEI the project.

However, the Court noted that the plain language of the Virginia Public Procurement Act allows contractors to bring an action in the appropriate circuit court challenging only a proposed award or the award of a contract – not the rejection of all bids.

Although the alleged conduct of the City appeared to be in violation of Virginia Code section 2.2-4319, which allows a public body to reject all bids but not solely to avoid awarding a contract to a particular bidder, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. It noted that the General Assembly created relief mechanisms for those aggrieved under the Public Procurement Act, and it would not enlarge the scope of those remedial statutes.

It should be noted that the City claimed that its decision had nothing to do with a desire not to award GEI the project.  Rather, the City official recommended the rejection of all bids based on the city, state and federal transportation representatives’ determination that the contract documents were probably not clearly understood by the bidders.  However, the Court's interpretation of the Virginia Public Procurement Act's jurisdiction eliminated the contractor's ability to receive a fair and impartial hearing on whether the City's actions were opportunistic and an unlawful rejection of all bids.  
 

McDonnell said in a statement that “[t]his is a pro-job creation amendment that will help keep employers in the commonwealth, encourage businesses to locate in Virginia and give us a further advantage over other states.” Major employer, Northrop Grumman, which is weighing whether to locate its headquarters in Virginia or Maryland, would qualify for the tax break.

The amendment will have no fiscal impact in FY 2011, according to the Governor, and an estimated $10 million in FY 2012. The Governor has until midnight Tuesday to send any further amendments to the budget to the legislature, which will be considered on April 21.
 

Don’t Discriminate! Contractors must refrain from engaging in workplace employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Although most people think of intentional discriminatory acts, employment discrimination can also arise when a neutral policy or practice has an adverse impact on the members of any race, sex, or ethnic group.

Post an EEO Poster. Federal contractors must post OFCCP’s EEO poster in a location that is easily seen (e.g., a lunchroom, break room, or locker room).

Include an EEO Tag Line in Employment Advertising. Contractors should include a sentence in all solicitations and advertisements for employment stating that “all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

Keep Records. Contractors must maintain their personnel records and employment records including job descriptions, job postings, job offers, applications and resumes, interview notes, tests and test results, written employment policies and procedures, personnel files, and time-keeping records.

Develop and Maintain an Affirmative Action Program. Contractors with 50 or more employees and a contract of $50,000 or more must develop and maintain a compliant affirmative action program (AAP).

Small businesses with Federal contracts should regularly review their EEO policies and procedures to ensure that they are compliant with Executive Order 11246. Certainly, given the potential penalties, it is better to be safe than sorry!

In this case, the professor was unable to meet the prong – likelihood of irreparable harm. The professor claimed that the Faculty Handbook required that he be allowed to work at the College for another year after being denied tenure.  Therefore, he sought an injunction against his termination pending the outcome of his claims for violations of his federal and constitutional rights. He argued that obtaining future employment while without a job was difficult at best, and therefore an injunction was needed to prevent further harm.  Although sympathetic to his situation, the Court reasoned that there was the possibility of adequate compensation for the year of employment at a later date in the case, which weighed heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.

Although in this case the Virginia Federal Court focused on the irreparable harm prong, litigants seeking injunctions will most likely find the requirement in the Winter test that a party demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits the most problematic. The Blackwelder standard required only that a party demonstrate a grave or serious question for litigation and it allowed more interplay between the standard’s prongs.  The Winter test is not as flexible.

We’ve also discussed the new, tougher standard in relation to non-competes and as it related to a Virginia state court case in previous posts on Virginia Business Law Update.
 

A recent decision from a Virginia Circuit Court serves as a worthwhile reminder to Virginia employers that not all non-compete agreements are enforceable. Although there was a non-compete agreement in place between a wholesale business and a former employee (who served as an account representative), the court in Specialty Marketing, Inc. v. Lawrence dismissed the breach of contract action because the agreement was geographically and functionally overbroad.

As we recently detailed in our series on business litigation claims, restrictive covenants (e.g., non-compete agreements) are disfavored in Virginia as they are restraints on trade. As such, it is the employer’s burden to prove that the restrictions are: 1) no greater than necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interest; and 2) not unduly harsh or oppressive in curtailing an employee’s ability to earn a livelihood. To determine whether an employer has met its burden, a Virginia court will look at the function, geographic scope, and duration of the non-compete agreement.

In Specialty Marketing, Inc. v. Lawrence, the non-compete agreement at issue provided that the employee could not “be employed by . . . any business competitive with Specialty in areas where Specialty has a market for its business.” The court concluded that this language was overbroad and unenforceable because it was unlimited in functional scope and far exceeded whatever limitation was necessary to protect the employer’s business interests. Additionally, the non-compete agreement was geographically overbroad as it was not limited to the area formerly serviced by the employee; nor was the agreement limited to a specific mile radius from the employee’s former territory.

As this case illustrates, simply having an agreement in place may not properly protect a Virginia business from competition by a former employee. To be upheld under Virginia law, the non-compete agreement must be narrowly tailored in terms of function, geographic scope, and time.

The dispute began between Worldwide Investigations & Research, Inc. (Worldwide) and BNX Systems Corporation (BNX) over the intellectual property rights to software BNX developed under a contract with Worldwide. While a Florida case over the issue was pending, BNX filed for bankruptcy protection in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division and sought to liquidate its assets. Worldwide objected to the sale of assets that it claimed ownership over; however, such claim was rejected by the Bankruptcy Court.

Shortly thereafter, Worldwide filed a complaint seeking a determination of the ownership rights to some of BNX’s assets, and a separate objection to BNX’s motion to sell its assets. Moreover, the president of Worldwide asserted in a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce that the sale would violate export restrictions. The latter action resulted in a government inquiry and caused a delay in the sale process.

As a result of Worldwide’s actions and court filings, BNX asserted a claim against it for abuse of process and tortious interference with business expectancy. In its counterclaim, BNX argued that Worldwide intentionally interfered with the sale of its assets by filing false claims. Most importantly, it claimed that Worldwide and its president filed false claims in order to delay the sale process in hopes that Worldwide would be able to purchase the assets at a reduced price. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of BNX, awarding it over $300,000 in damages.

However, the Appeals Court vacated the entire award. The Court determined that BNX failed to prove the existence of a business expectancy – noting that a business expectancy must be “based upon something that is a concrete move in that direction.” BNX’s argument that it had a business expectancy in having an auction process free from the effects of improper filings was rejected by the Court.

Given the interests of competing companies in today’s marketplace, it is not surprising that tortious interference claims are routinely seen in courts. As this case illustrates, claims for tortious interference with business expectancy will be dismissed where the plaintiff merely alleges, in general terms, that a defendant has interfered with potential business opportunities. Virginia courts have also held that the following also do not satisfy this standard: sales to unidentified potential buyers; retroactive promotions; and continuing to do or remaining in business.

 

The ADEA, unlike Title VII, states that it is not unlawful for an employer to take an action “otherwise prohibited” by the statute against an employee where “the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA). The Supreme Court interpreted this provision in Smith v. City of Jackson and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, which involved disparate impact discrimination claims.

The Supreme Court in Smith held that employees bringing claims under the ADEA can rely on the disparate impact theory, and thus, proof of age-motivation is not required. The Smith decision also stated that employers can defend such a case based on a reasonable factor other than age; however, the Court did not provide which party had the burden of persuasion on this issue.  Subsequently, in Meacham, the Supreme Court held that the employer - not the employee - has the burden of proving the RFOA defense.

The EEOC’s proposed rule seeks to provide guidance on what constitutes “reasonable factors other than age” consistent with the decisions in Smith and Meacham. It’s non-exhaustive list of relevant factors to be considered in determining whether an employment practice is reasonable are as follows:

--  Whether the employment practice and the manner of its implementation are common business practices;
--  The extent to which the factor is related to the employer’s stated business goal;
--  The extent to which the employer took steps to define the factor accurately and to apply the factor fairly and accurately (e.g., training, guidance, instruction of managers);
--  The extent to which the employer took steps to assess the adverse impact of its employment practice on older workers;
--  The severity of the harm to individuals within the protected age group, in terms of both the degree of injury and the numbers of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the employer took preventive or corrective steps to minimize the severity of the harm, in light of the burden of undertaking such steps; and
--  Whether other options were available and the reasons the employer selected the option it did.

It is important to note that this standard is lower than Title VII’s business-necessity test but higher than the Equal Pay Act’s “any other factor” test.

The EEOC is accepting public comment on the proposed rule until April 19, 2010.

Virginia Supreme Court rules require a plaintiff to inform the defendant of the true nature of a claim, which is a fundamental principle of due process. Virginia courts interpreting this rule have consistently held that in addition to describing the claim against a defendant, defendants are entitled to notice of the size and amount of the claim. This requirement is contrary to Federal practice, which does mandate that a complaint quantify the monetary damages sought. Under federal procedure, the court must award the full relief to which a plaintiff is entitled, regardless of the amount, if any, set forth in the complaint.

May a plaintiff increase the requested damages amount? Yes, a court may allow for an increase if later circumstances warrant it, but a plaintiff must promptly seek an amendment. A plaintiff will not be permitted to increase the damages post-verdict.

In deciding whether to grant the amendment of a pleading to increase the amount sought in the ad damnum clause a trial court considers whether the defendant will be prejudiced by allowing the amendment and whether such prejudice will affect the defendant’s ability to have a fair trial. In addition, the court considers the plaintiff’s right to be compensated fully for any damages caused by the defendant’s acts or omissions. This decision rests within the discretion of the circuit court and appeal review is limited.

The above rules may be somewhat burdensome to a plaintiff.  But, on the flip side, the ad damnum clause is crucial to the defendant in order for it to formulate trial strategy and assess risks in defending the litigation. 

The location of a corporation’s principal place of business is an important consideration in the determination of whether a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a case. As federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, they can only hear cases if there is federal question jurisdiction (i.e., the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the U.S. Constitution or a law of the United States) or diversity jurisdiction (i.e., the amount of money at issue is at least $75,000 and none of the plaintiffs are from the same state as any of the defendants.) Under a diversity jurisdiction analysis, a corporation is treated as a citizen of any State in which it is incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.

For years, practitioners and courts alike have struggled with a uniform test for determining a corporation’s principal place of business, particularly in instances where corporate headquarters and executive offices were located in one State but plants or other centers of business activity were located in other States.

While I agree that yesterday’s Supreme Court decision should bring greater clarity to the issue of what constitutes a corporation’s principal place of business, the “nerve center” test is far from perfect. As technology evolves and businesses become increasingly mobile (and, in some instances, virtual), the task of determining a company’s nerve center will be easier said than done.

For more information on this case, you can read Frank Steinberg’s post on the New Jersey Employment Law Blog or Tony Mauro’s article in the National Law Journal. If you have a lot of free time on your hands with nothing better to do, you can read the official hearing transcript.
 

The Court noted that the Virginia cases applying the first material breach rule are not entirely uniform. However, the decision recognized the weight of authority supporting application of recent Virginia Supreme Court cases which precluded enforcement of a contract by the contractual party committing the first material breach, even where the parties continued performing under the contract.

In order for the "first breach rule" to be applicable, the party must have committed a material breach.  What is a material breach? A breach that is “so fundamental to the contract that the failure to perform that obligation defeats an essential purpose of the contract.”

This case stands for two propositions - (1) failure to pay invoices in a timely fashion will almost certainly constitute a material breach; and (2) the contractual party to commit the first material breach of an agreement releases the other party's subsequent contractual obligations.

I couldn’t agree more with Tim and Victoria. Although lawsuits are often the price of doing business (if you are in business long enough, chances are you will eventually get sued), you can take proactive steps that will not only reduce the probability of getting sued but will substantially reduce your potential liability in the unfortunate event that you are sued.

The recent arrests are the result of the first extensive use of undercover federal agents related to the FCPA. In this investigation, the FBI undercover agent posed as a sales agent representing the defense minister of an African nation. After making contact with the defendant, the agent relayed that he had been tasked with obtaining a variety of military and law enforcement products for the African nation’s presidential guard. Allegedly, the $15 million deal struck with each defendant included a 10% payment going directly to the defense minister and another 10% going to the “sales agent.” In addition to allegedly attempting to pay the FBI agent improper “commissions,” the indictment also alleges that the undercover agent met the executives in luxury hotels and expensive restaurants, that the executives provided inflated price quotes for the products and wired bribe money to the “sales agent.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has clearly become more aggressive in its enforcement of the FCPA. Notably, the DOJ and Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) have brought substantially more cases against individuals in the past couple of years. In 2008, the Corporate Crime Reporter reported the Deputy Chief of the Justice Department’s Fraud Section as stating that prosecution of individuals is on the rise because of explicit Department policy – sending people to jail will have a credible deterrent effect.

Clearly, business executives and owners of companies who engage in international business transactions must operate with a heightened degree of scrutiny and take considerable measures to prevent their companies from violating the FCPA.

Complying with the FCPA

In general, if your company operates internationally, particularly in high-risk countries or industries, then a rigorous FCPA compliance program is warranted. The elements of such a program depend on many factors, but typically include a comprehensive FCPA policy prohibiting improper payment to foreign officials, education of employees regarding the law, monitoring employee actions for compliance, and procedures and policies related to reporting potential violations.
 

Over the past 15 years, the employer-employee relationship has changed dramatically. Long gone are the days when an employee would spend an entire career with the same employer. Instead, in this day and age of monster.com, employees are just one click away from their next employment opportunity.

As a result of the transient nature of today’s workforce, employers have turned to Virginia courts for redress. In addition to filing lawsuits for theft of trade secrets or an employee’s breach of a non-compete agreement, employers are increasingly pursuing claims against former employees for breach of fiduciary duty.

What is an employee’s fiduciary duty to an employer?
An employee has a general duty to perform his job faithfully and in furtherance of the employer’s business.

How is an employee’s fiduciary duty created?
Unlike other business litigation claims that are based on a statute or a contract, an action for breach of fiduciary duty arises from the relationship between an employer and an employee.

Although all employees (regardless of title, pay, or rank) have a general duty to refrain from any action that is adverse or contrary to the interests of an employer, employees who are held in an esteemed position of trust or confidence (e.g., corporate officers, employees with substantial knowledge or unique skills) carry a greater fiduciary obligation to their employer.

How is a fiduciary duty breached?
The determination of whether a fiduciary duty is breached is highly dependent on the facts and circumstances at hand. However, in general, courts will find that an employee has breached his fiduciary duty in instances where the employee has used his knowledge or position of trust for personal gain or for the benefit of a competitor.

For example, Virginia courts have found that an officer breached his fiduciary duty by making plans to compete with his current employer, recruiting co-workers to join him in a new venture, and by organizing a mass resignation from the employer.

Virginia courts have also found that an employee breached a fiduciary duty by using a former employer’s confidential information for the competitive advantage of a new employer.

Given the transient nature of employees in today’s marketplace, a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is an additional weapon that employers can use to mitigate any damages resulting from an unfaithful key employee. As fiduciary duty claims are factually intensive, (and therefore more likely to survive a demurrer or summary judgment), they also provide employers with a viable cause of action in instances where the facts may not fully support other business claims.

Stay tuned for Part 4 of the Virginia business litigation claims series, which will focus on tortious interference with a contract.