A New London Connecticut Superior Court jury awarded an $839,423 verdict in November 2019, involving theft of trade secrets for a $70 million U.S. Navy underwater drone project. This case, LBI, Inc. v. Sparks, et al., KNL-cv12-6018984-S, is a classic example of the blatant theft of an employer’s confidential and proprietary information that is so easily traceable to electronic files – and the costly consequences for the defendant employer’s complicity in that trade secret misappropriation.
Monthly Archives: December 2019
New London Connecticut Superior Court Jury Awards $839,423 Verdict for Theft of U.S. Navy Underwater Drone Project Trade Secrets
Are we feeling that holiday spirit yet??
No matter what you celebrate, or don’t celebrate, this time of year feels like a CRUNCH. We’re all rushing around, trying to finish end of the year projects, and planning for next year is already underway. You probably have seen a lot of “end of the year” posts already, and I’m adding this one to the mix.
As winter once again approaches, employers, particularly those in cold-weather states, face the recurring specter of inclement weather affecting business operations and employee attendance. While the weather may create stress and disruption for a business and its people, employers must not lose sight of the fact that the rules governing how you pay your employees continue to apply throughout any weather event.
Department of Labor Issues Final Rule Updating Regulations Addressing When Pay and Benefits Factor into the FLSA Regular Rate
On December 16, 2019, the United States Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) published in the Federal Register a Final Rule updating the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) regulations that govern, among other things, whether certain types of pay and benefits constitute part of a non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime under federal law. Under section 7(e) of the FLSA, an employee’s regular rate for any given workweek “shall be deemed to include all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of the employee, but shall not be deemed to include” pay or benefits falling within eight enumerated exclusions.
Our Real Estate Specialty Group announced today the fourth release of its publication, “Buying & Selling Real Estate: An International Guide.” This collaborative electronic guide offers a summary of key real estate law principles in almost 30 jurisdictions across the globe, serving as a quick, practical reference for those buying & selling real estate in these jurisdictions.
We’re so pleased to offer the fourth edition of our guide, which builds on our previous efforts. We have expanded the guide by six jurisdictions, including Colombia, Hungary, India, Norway, Panama, and Singapore. The group has also updated the guide with the latest figures and regulations for their countries. It’s a practical and valuable resource for firms and companies with multinational real estate needs.
Liability for non-compliance with the requirements on the localization of personal data of Russian nationals to become more stringent
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a recent judgment dated November 04, 2019 in the matter of Mukut Pathak & Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr. [W.P.(C) 9088/2018 & CM Appln. No. 35006/2018] interpreted the provisions of Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA 2013”) in detail including disqualification of directors, retrospective applicability of the section and applicability of principles of natural justice and discussed its consequent repercussions under Section 167(1) of the CA 2013.
The National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) has announced that it is publishing proposed changes to its Rules and Regulations that will begin to reverse the Board’s 2014 changes, which took effect in 2015, to its representation election rules and procedures commonly referred to as the “ambush election rules.” The proposed final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2019 and to become effective 120 days after publication.
December 13, 2019 — The Supreme Court issued yesterday a much anticipated decision on the application of family patrimony rules where a family residence is held by a trust rather than by either spouse.
In Yared v. Karam, 2019 SCC 62, the Supreme Court, in a 5–2 decision, resolved the issue by deciding that the value of a family residence held in a trust can be included in the family patrimony when it is determined that a spouse retains the rights that confer use.