No Contribution Where Theories of Liability Differ
John and Brenda Skipper must have felt more like John and Brenda “Flipper” after purchasing a property in Shelby County for $20,496 and then contracting to sell it for $63,000 just five months later. See Skipper v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 1508297, 2 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). Although the couple invested close to $18,000 into the property in order to “flip” it, they still stood to make a cool $21,221 in profit from the sale. Unfortunately, the Skippers learned just before closing that there were two IRS tax liens totaling over $127,000 encumbering the property, which killed the sale.
By Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 6
The last few posts have considered the Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC v Keymon case and its holdings on the issues of trade secrets, non-competes, and damages. So, what is the final take-away from this case? While there are many interesting issues in the case, there are three key points to remember.
Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 5
The trial court found that Tammy Keymon violated the non-compete contained in her Employment Agreement and misappropriated trade secrets of her former employer. The Court then found the misappropriation was “willful and malicious” and awarded exemplary damages. Now it was time to total the bill.
Trade Secrets, Non-Competes and E-Mail Do Not Go Well Together (Unless You Like Punitive Damages) - Part 4
Tammy Keymon learned that e-mailing her former employer’s client information to herself violated Tennessee’s trade secret statute. Even though most of the information could have been gathered from public sources, the aggregation and speed of acquisition from her former employer (which the Court found took reasonable steps to protect the information by password-protecting its computer network), constituted a misappropriation of trade secrets.
Older Entries
