The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Chief Litigation Officer Summit:
The primary objective of the Chief Litigation Officer Summit is to explore the key aspects and issues related to litigation best practices and the protection and defense of corporations. The Summit’s program topics have been pinpointed and validated by leading litigation counsel as the top critical issues they face.
March 21-23, 2013
The Broadmoor, Colorado Springs, CO
Raymond Law Group LLC‘s Stephen G. Troiano recently had an article, Trade Secret Misappropriation: When An Insider Takes Your Trade Secrets With Them, featured in The National Law Review:
While companies are often focused on outsider risks such as breach of their systems through a stolen laptop or hacking, often the biggest risk is from insiders themselves. Such problems of access management with existing employees, independent contractors and other persons are as much a threat to proprietary information as threats from outside sources.
In any industry dominated by two main players there will be intense competition for an advantage. Advanced Micro Devices and Nvida dominate the graphics card market. They put out competing models of graphics cards at similar price points. When played by the rules, such competition is beneficial for both the industry and consumers.
AMD has sued four former employees for allegedly taking “sensitive” documents when they left to work for Nvidia. In its complaint, filed in the 1st Circuit District Court of Massachusetts, AMD claims this is “an extraordinary case of trade secret transfer/misappropriation and strategic employee solicitation.” Allegedly, forensically recovered data show that when the AMD employees left in July of 2012 they transferred thousands of files to external hard drives that they then took with them. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Feldstein et al, No. 4:2013cv40007 (1st Cir. 2013).
On January 14, 2013 the District Court of Massachusetts granted AMD’s ex-parte temporary restraining order finding AMD would suffer immediate and irreparable injury if the Court did not issue the TRO. The TRO required the AMD employees to immediately provide their computers and storage devices for forensic evaluation and to refrain from using or disclosing any AMD confidential information.
The employees did not have a non-compete contract. Instead the complaint is centered on an allegation of misappropriation of trade secrets. While both AMD and Nvidia are extremely competitive in the consumer discrete gpu market involving PC gaming enthusiasts, there are rumors that AMD managed to secure their hardware to be placed in both forthcoming next-generation consoles, Sony PlayStation 4 and Microsoft Xbox 720. AMD’s TRO and ultimate goal of the suit may therefore be to preclude any of their proprietary technology from being used by its former employees to assist Nvidia in the future.
The law does protect companies and individuals such as AMD from having their trade secrets misappropriated. The AMD case has only recently been filed and therefore it is unclear what the response from the employees will be. What is clear is how fast AMD was able to move to deal with such a potential insider threat. Companies need to be aware of who has access to what data and for how long. Therefore, in the event of a breach, whether internal or external, companies can move quickly to isolate and identify the breach and take steps such as litigation to ensure their proprietary information is protected.
© 2013 by Raymond Law Group LLC
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ABA Gaming Law Minefield Conference:
When
February 14 – 15, 2013
Where
The National Law Review published an article by Teresa B. Finer of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., regarding Immigration Legislation:
Senator Rubio and his “Gang of Eight” proposed an outline for immigration reform Monday, and President Obama followed on Tuesday with his broad initiatives. The bipartisan committee intends to have draft legislation by March, and a vote by August. After many years of congressional debates to no avail, Democrats and Republicans are tripping over each other these days to be the first to suggest a reasonable plan to resolve the immigration concerns that most of the country agrees needs to be fixed in some way. But immigration is perhaps more politically charged than many longstanding and widespread national concerns, and the concern is whether legislation proposed and passed so quickly can actually solve the problems with our current system.
In order to understand whether proposed legislation will make a positive difference, of course, it is important to understand what our current set of immigration laws provides. Most Americans have little to no knowledge about the current laws restricting immigration, simply because they have had little to no meaningful exposure to these regulations. Here is a review of some of the key issues proposed thus far:
The media has focused primarily on the estimated 11 million residing illegally in the U.S. The debate ranges from whether we should provide any benefits to these individuals, to whether the fix should include a “path to citizenship,” and what must occur before benefits are extended to this group. In evaluating the best course, it is important to understand the difference between temporary work authorization, permanent residency, and U.S. citizenship. The first level immigration benefit is temporary legal status coupled with employment authorization – a temporary work card with conditions for extension. The second step is permanent residency – casually referred to as “green card” status, authorizing long-term stay and open employment authorization. The very highest benefit would be U.S. citizenship – the right to carry a U.S. passport, a faster route to sponsor certain relatives, and most significantly for politicians – the right to vote. Providing the right to vote for 11 million new voters certainly has serious political ramifications for both parties, and this is probably why the “path to citizenship” issue is so important in the congressional debate. But for the actual individuals living here illegally for years, work authorization leading to a green card would be a major win.
The bipartisan group has proposed that permanent residency for those here illegally only be granted after border security and a better tracking system have been established, and only after those foreign nationals who have applied through traditional legal channels have gone through the system and been approved for permanent residency. President Obama thus far has opposed a hold on residency based on a decision on secure borders. The question is whether there should be some waiting period before granting permanent residency to those here illegally, and if so, how we will determine that the border is sufficiently secure to prevent mass illegal entry in the future. How can this be measured? Are secure borders a logical tie into the grant of permanent residency for this group, or should this be included but unrelated? Requiring those illegally here to wait their turn behind those that have applied legally seems easier to track, but this, too, is a complex issue, as the lines for legal immigration are unreasonably long and should also be adjusted in a comprehensive bill.
While the illegal issue has been in the press for several years, in contrast, the proposed legislation’s suggestions to change legal immigration are new and unfamiliar to most. Specifically, for example, the proposal suggests that for the first time, permanent residency should be awarded to anyone that graduates with a U.S. Master’s degree in science, technology, engineering, or math (“STEM” fields of study.) Current law gives some preference to those with U.S. Master’s degrees in any field of study. Under current law, for example, additional H-1B temporary visas for professionals are available for those with U.S. Master’s level degrees in any professional field. But this new proposal goes way farther, issuing permanentresidency for anyone with a U.S. Master’s STEM degrees. Would this include the graduate at the bottom of the class? Would it include graduates with U.S. degrees completed online, or even U.S. Master’s degrees completed while residing overseas? Should we grant permanent residency to a foreign national who comes to the U.S. for a one year graduate program and who has no job offer in a STEM field, maybe not even a temporary offer of employment in any field? Do we want to immediately extend this valuable benefit to those who are able to graduate, or only to those able to secure job offers following graduation? If so, how long must they work to maintain the status?
The proposal also includes more visas for unskilled workers, which might include roofers, caretakers for the elderly, groundsmen, and other positions that have been difficult for employers to fill, as well as a program to add visa categories to bring in more temporary agricultural workers to the U.S. Many employers will welcome such provisions. The details of precisely how employers would petition for these workers, however, and whether these employees ultimately will be given a long-term right to stay in the U.S. is the key to whether this represents worthwhile change or just more government bureaucracy.
© Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming White Collar Crime Institute:
The program will provide an in-depth analysis of three recent high visibility trials by the lawyers involved in the cases. The many topics covered will include: ethical pitfalls and blunders in white collar practice, conducting global investigations (including issues of competing laws), data privacy and blocking statutes, trial tactics in white collar cases, Brady obligations, international issues in white collar practice (including obtaining evidence abroad), handling of, and dealing with, issues related to electronically stored materials, sentencing guidelines and arguing for a departure, updates and trends in securities and FCPA enforcement, and more!
On 1 February, the annual increase on certain statutory payments comes into effect. The key changes are the following:
Other increases will take effect in April 2013, including increases in statutory maternity pay and statutory sick pay, and the level of national minimum wage will increase in October 2013.
Additionally, on 17 January, the government announced that the cap on the unfair dismissal compensatory award will change. Beginning around summer 2013, unfair dismissal compensation will be capped at the lower of the statutory cap (currently £74,200) and 12 months’ pay. This is a major change in UK employment law and one that employers will welcome because the financial risk of dismissing an employee who earns less than the statutory cap will be reduced. However, it is likely to mean that more employees will make discrimination or whistleblowing claims, for which no statutory cap applies.
Copyright © 2013 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 2013 NAWL Mid-Year Conference – Stretched & Balanced:
Please join NAWL at Walt Disney World®, Florida for our 2013 Mid-Year meeting, February 14-16, 2013.
Attend timely andstimulating CLE programs that will assist you as a woman lawyer in your practice setting.
Network with NAWL membersfrom across the country, plan future activities with your colleagues on NAWL committees, and have a family-oriented, fun-filled time at the theme parks.
The National Law Review recently published an article, Private Equity Beware: Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Official Predicts Increased Scrutiny, Enforcement Action in 2013, written by Mark T. Carberry with Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP:
In late January, the SEC published remarks from a high-ranking SEC official that included projections that the private equity industry would see more scrutiny and enforcement in 2013. “It’s not unreasonable to think that the number of [enforcement] cases involving private equity will increase,” said Bruce Karpati, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit.* In his comments, Karpati rooted his prediction in private equity’s “significant growth spurt” preceding the financial crisis, the substantial increase in assets under management, and the fact that only recently have many private equity managers become registered investment advisers.
The misconduct that the SEC is most likely to target falls under two broad categories: valuation and conflicts of interest, according to Karpati.
As to valuation, Karpati described one form of manager misconduct that occurs when assets are “written up” during a fund raising period, only to be immediately written down after the fund raising period closes.
Karpati further identified the following common conflicts of interest that require control and disclosure:
Karpati deemed the roles of chief operating officer and chief financial officer “critical” in ensuring a firm satisfies its fiduciary duties to clients. This is true due to the unique, broad perspective they enjoy in running the business of the manager.
Karpati specified a number of “best practices” that private equity firms should consider:
Karpati concluded his remarks by encouraging collaboration with legal and compliance resources whenever potential conflict of interest issues are identified.
Note: The Asset Management Unit is one of five specialized units within the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, each designed to address specific areas of the financial markets. The other units are the Market Abuse Unit, the Structured and New Products Unit, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit, and the Municipal Securities and Public Pension Unit.
© 2013 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp:
Have you ever gone to a seminar that left you feeling motivated, but you walked out with little more than a good feeling? Or taken a workshop that was great on style, but short on substance?
Ever been to an event that was nothing more than a “pitch fest” that left a bad taste in your mouth? We know exactly how you feel. We have all been to those kinds of events and we hate all those things too. Let me tell you right up front this is not a “pitch fest” where speaker after speaker gets up only trying to sell you something.
We have designed this 2 day intensive workshop to be content rich, loaded with practical content.
We are so confident you will love the Rainmaker Retreat that we offer a 100% unconditional money-back guarantee! At the end of the first day of the Rainmaker Retreat if you don’t believe you have already received your money’s worth, simply tell one of the staff, return your 70-page workbook and the CD set you received and we will issue you a 100% refund.
We understand making the decision to attend an intensive 2-day workshop is a tough decision. Not only do you have to take a day off work (all Rainmaker Retreats are offered only on a Friday-Saturday), but in many cases you have to travel to the event. As a business owner you want to be sure this is a worthwhile investment of your time and money.
Partners at Small Law Firms (less than 25 attorneys) Solo Practitioners and Of Counsel attorneys who are committed to growing their firm. Benefits you will receive:
Solo practitioners who need to find more clients fast on a shoe-string budget. In addition to all the above benefits, solo attorneys will receive these massive benefits:
Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff who are either responsible for marketing the law firm or manage the team who handles the law firm’s marketing. In addition to all the above benefits, Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff will also receive these benefits:
Of Counsel Attorneys who are paid on an “eat what you kill” basis. In addition to all the above benefits, Of Counsel attorneys will also receive these benefits:
Associates who are either looking to grow their book of new clients in the next 6-12 months or want to launch their own private practice. In addition to all the above benefits, Associates will also receive these benefits:
The National Law Review recently published an article written by Charles A. Samuels and Matthew Cohen with Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding Children’s Product Testing:
On February 8, 2013, manufacturers and importers of children’s products (a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger) will be required to follow certain testing and certification protocols established by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”).1 The new rule provides guidance on how to ensure a product meets all applicable safety standards over continued production. Understanding the new testing and certification rule is critical for all manufacturers and importers of children’s products. The deadline to be in compliance with the rule comes at a time when the safety of children’s products continues to receive heightened scrutiny by the federal government.
The Consumer Product Safety Act2 (as amended by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008) requires that nearly all children’s products undergo third party testing. The law also mandates that manufacturers, importers and private labelers certify that their children’s products meet all applicable CPSC rules. Therefore, third party testing serves as the basis for a company to certify, via a “Children’s Product Certificate,” that its children’s products meet all such requirements.
In 2011, the CPSC enacted a final rule establishing protocols with respect to initial and continued testing and certification for children’s products. This rule has been called by some the “reasonable testing rule” because it establishes standards for testing and certification programs. Importantly, on February 8, 2013, this rule will become effective and apply to all children’s products manufactured after that date. By this time, children’s product manufacturers and importers must have a documented testing and certification program, and all products must be made per the terms of this program.
There are three types of third party testing discussed in the new rule: (1) initial testing; (2) material change testing; and (3) periodic testing. It is critical to have an understanding of each phase of testing and certification, and how they affect manufacturing and testing processes.
As of February 8, 2013, manufacturers must also develop a written plan for periodic testing of their children’s products, which must include the tests to be conducted, the intervals at which the tests will be conducted, and the number of samples to be tested. The rule also requires that companies include in their plan a protocol to address a material change in product design or manufacturing process, procedures to safeguard against the exercise of undue influence on a third party laboratory, policies regarding employee training, and a recordkeeping plan, among others.
Mintz Levin has assembled a team that is devoted to CPSC-administered laws and regulations. We stand ready to advise and assist clients to anticipate and respond to compliance issues arising under federal, state, and international product safety laws. Practice leader Chuck Samuels has represented clients in the product safety arena for almost 30 years. We are presently advising trade associations, manufacturers, retailers, and importers on how to not only prevent problems from arising, but capitalize on new opportunities.
1 This rule entitled “Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification” is codified at 16 C.F.R. § 1107.
2 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051- 2089.
©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
