Monthly Archives: December 2015

Two lawyers join RSS’ Insurance Law Group

December 2, 2015 — Over the past few days, two new lawyers joined our Insurance Law Group.

Julie C. Fortier was called to the Quebec Bar in 2014. Prior to joining RSS, she gained experience with medical negligence litigation and disciplinary and organisational aspects of medical practice.

Marc-André McCann is joining us after having practised for two years with a construction litigation boutique firm. He was called to the Bar in 2013. 

Read full article

Rainmaking Recommendation from Jaimie Field: What’s going to be different next year?

Today’s Rainmaking Recommendation from expert and coach, Jaimie Field, issues a challenge as we near the end of 2015. What’s going to be different next year?


We are really, really close to the end of the year.

It is time to reflect on the past year and determine how you did this year and what you can do better for the next. However, for most attorneys, the past 365 days were exactly like the 365 days before that. 

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Port-related businesses and their advisors should ask these questions in anticipation of canal expansion, says Brendan Barry

Brendan Barry, a partner in the Fort Lauderdale office of Shutts & Bowen and a board member of the Port Everglades Association, recently published this article in the Daily Business Review on the questions that port-related businesses and their advisors should be asking in anticipation of the expanded canal.

According to the article, the canal expansion is less than five months away (the first ship is scheduled to pass in April 2016). This will directly affect tour operators, tug companies and environmental service companies as well as financial services as businesses prepare financially.

Read More

Read full article

Trans Pacific Partnership Terms Revealed But Trade Secret Protections Still Uncertain

Recently the Obama administration publicly released the previously-undisclosed text of the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP, revealing, among other things, the provisions related to trade secrets.  Earlier, the administration had said that the TPP would “provide strong enforcement systems, including, for example, civil procedures, provisional measures, border measures, and criminal procedures and penalties for commercial-scale trademark counterfeiting and copyright or related rights piracy. In particular, TPP Parties will provide the legal means to prevent the misappropriation of trade secrets, and establish criminal procedures and penalties for trade secret theft, including by means of cyber-theft…,” according to the statement from Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”).  The just released terms do specify that member parties must provide criminal procedures to combat trade secret theft, but it is not clear that any enhanced civil remedies will be required.

Chapter 18, at Article 18.78, addresses trade secret protections, and requires each member country to assure that “persons have the legal means to prevent trade secrets lawfully in their control from being disclosed to, acquired by, or used by others (including state-owned enterprises) without their consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices.” Article 18.78.1. The TPP then defines “a manner contrary to honest commercial practices” to mean “at least practices such as breach of contract, breach of confidence and inducement to breach, and includes the acquisition of undisclosed information by third parties that knew, or were grossly negligent in failing to know, that those practices were involved in the acquisition.”  That article then goes on to state in Article 18.78.2 that “each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties (emphasis added) for one or more of the following:

  1. the unauthorised and wilful access to a trade secret held in a computer system;
  2. the unauthorised and wilful misappropriation of a trade secret, including by means of a computer system; or
  3. the fraudulent disclosure, or alternatively, the unauthorised and wilful disclosure, of a trade secret, including by means of a computer system.

While some would have wanted member nations to provide for both criminal and civil remedies so that trade secret owners might have a more direct role in enforcing their rights, the lack of direct mention in this article of civil remedies is not likely the area of greatest concern for such trade owners.

Of greater concern should be the somewhat strange language of Article 18.78.3:

With respect to the relevant acts referred to in paragraph 2, a Party may, as appropriate, limit the availability of its criminal procedures, or limit the level of penalties available, to one or more of the following cases in which:

(a) the acts are for the purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain;

(b) the acts are related to a product or service in national or international commerce;

(c) the acts are intended to injure the owner of such trade secret;

(d) the acts are directed by or for the benefit of or in association with a foreign economic entity; or

(e) the acts are detrimental to a Party’s economic interests, international relations, or national defence or national security. (emphasis added)

Let’s hope something got lost in the translation or in the printing because, reading section 2 and 3 together, it looks like member countries only have to provide procedures addressing unauthorised and wilful access, misappropriation and disclosure in one of those five categories.  That means that the “protections” might leave four out of those five unaddressed.  Thus, there may still be no redress for acts undertaken for financial gain in commerce to the intended detriment of the trade secret owner, perhaps in connection with a foreign entity.  If that article really means what it says, and a Party to the TPP can limit its trade secrets protections only to address those cases “the acts are detrimental to a Party’s economic interests, international relations, or national defence or national security,” then the TPP has really promised almost nothing regarding trade secrets.

Read full article

„Must Reede“ iseloomustas online ostlemise trendi.

2015. a „Must Reede“ on möödas ja maailma meedia on jäetud kajastama ostuhulluse tagajärgi. TGS retail meeskonna jaoks ei ole meedia järelkajas, et online ostude arv püstitas võimsad rekordid, midagi üllatavat. Oleme korduvalt oma blogis kirjutanud, et tarbijate käitumisharjumused on järjepidevalt muutumises ja tarbijate poodlemine mobiilsete sidevahendite kaudu on kasvav trend.

Numbritest – „Musta Reede“ jooksul sooritasid Ameerika tarbijad online`s, 4,21 miljardi euro eest oste, mis iseloomustab 14% suurust kasvu võrreldes eelmise aastaga. Kusjuures üle poole ostudest tehti just mobiilsete sidevahendite kaudu. UK-s sooritasid tarbijad online`s ca 1,6 miljardi euro eest oste. Amazon ja John Lewis on tänaseks ka tõdenud, et tegemist oli nende parima müügipäevaga. Amazoni hinnangul müüsid nad rohkem kui 7,4 miljonit eset (võrdluseks, et eelmisel aastal oli see number „kõigest“ 1,9 miljonit). 

Read full article

Creating a WOW Communications Program

cropped-005-lma-ne-2015-conference-email-banner_emailRather than bringing you our regularly scheduled “Two for Tuesdays” today, I’m continuing the roundup from the LMA New England Conference, with “Creating a WOW Communications Program,” another excellent session I attended.

Whether you’re tasked directly with communications or not, the truth is that we’re all communicators in our firms – we all have messages to deliver, whether it’s as lawyers to clients or as marketers to our lawyers. So there are strong benefits to gain from this session for all of us.  

Read full article
ILN Today Post

No jurisdiction for creditors who have proved elsewhere

In Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys [2014] UKPC 41, the Privy Council has held that where a company was being wound up in a jurisdiction where it was incorporated, and where a foreign creditor had submitted a proof of debt to the liquidators, that creditor had submitted to the jurisdiction of the administering court, and could not bring proceedings in its own jurisdiction with the aim of obtaining priority over other creditors.

The creditor was a Dutch pension fund who had invested in a BVI investment fund but was insolvent, having participated in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme.  The creditor had submitted a proof of debt to the liquidators in the BVI before proceeding in the Netherlands with a view to enforcing against cash held in Ireland by an intermediate company.  The BVI Court of Appeal issued an injunction restraining the Dutch proceedings on the basis that BVI statutory rules of distribution prevented a creditor from gaining priority through a different jurisdiction.

Read More

Read full article