The Business Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s trade secrets claim yesterday in Edgewater Services, Inc. v. Epic Logistics, Inc., 2009 NCBC 20 (N.C. Super. Ct. August 11, 2009). It also dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.
Plaintiff Edgewater and Defendant Epic are third party logistics companies, arranging for transportation of freight for their
The Defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination was the basis for the North Carolina Business Court’s entry of a Preliminary Injunction on October 29th in Amacell LLC v. Bostic.
Plaintiff asserted that its former employee, a senior research scientist, had misappropriated trade secrets and violated a confidentiality agreement. The Defendant
There was no tortious interference contract claim against a defendant who sold product to plaintiff’s competitor. This was a legitimate exercise of the defendant’s rights.
There was no claim for negligence, or negligent misrepresentation, against the defendant because the plaintiff’s claims were for breach of warranty and covered by the UCC, and also because of the
The Court of Appeals affirmed yesterday a 12(b)(6) dismissal of a claim under the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act, in Washburn v. Yadkin Valley Bank and Trust Co.
In Washburn, the Defendant had made a counterclaim charging that the Plaintiffs, former employees, had misappropriated its trade secrets. The trade secrets the Defendant referenced
Defendant, a veterinarian, had signed a covenant not to compete with his former employer. He was, at the time, the sole shareholder, sole officer, and sole director of his employer, although the management of the company was controlled by an affiliated entity (VetCor). Defendant left the business and sold its stock, but before doing so
Plaintiff sought to enforce the stock repurchase provisions of a shareholders agreement with two former employees, the defendants. The Court found, however, that the price to be paid ($5 for stock with a book value of more than $36,000), and the circumstances under which the defendants had signed the agreement, rendered the transaction unconscionable. The
The Court found that the actions of the defendants in pirating away employees and accounts of the plaintiff exceeded the bounds of fair and ethical competition and therefore constitute unfair and deceptive practices.
The Court referred to defendants’ conduct as "surreptitious and intentional," and undertaken while the employees solicited were still employed by the plaintiff.
This is a significant Business Court opinion on unfair competition. The defendants were a competitor of the plaintiff, and former employees of the plaintiff who had left to join the defendant. The first issue addressed by the Court was whether the former employees owed a fiduciary duty to their former employer. The Court found there