On March 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in the matter of Foley v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, Case No. 0:11-cv-62476-WILLIAMS, entered summary judgment in favor of employer Morgan Stanley, and against one of its former financial advisors, Ryan Foley, and held that an employee may lawfully be terminated for misconduct, even… Continue Reading
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently denied a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that a former employee had misappropriated trade secrets when he left to work for a competitor, and granted the defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment. The case provides a useful overview of the evidence needed to support a violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).
In California, it is well established that non-compete provisions are unenforceable, subject to certain statutory exceptions. But what about non-compete provisions that are ambiguous as to their protection of confidential information or trade secrets? Recently, when faced with such a provision, one California federal court narrowly construed the provision to find it enforceable.
To borrow from a classic song: There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.” Last Thursday, a federal district judge sentenced a former DuPont employee to 18 months in jail, following a guilty plea of stealing trade secrets relating to DuPont’s Kevlar products. A few weeks earlier, the U.S. Attorney for New York’s Southern District… Continue Reading