Enter keywords:
This post discusses the basics of the “automatic stay” that is in place when a customer files for bankruptcy. This post also includes a discussion of the potential pitfalls that creditors face for violations of the automatic stay.
Continue Reading... The Texas Supreme Court has once again affirmed its decision to make non-compete agreements more easily enforceable by employers against their employees. The Court was asked to consider whether a covenant not to compete signed by a valued employee in consideration for stock options, designed to give the employee a greater stake in the company’s performance, is unenforceable as a matter of law because the stock options did not give rise to an interest in restraining competition.
In the summer of 2011, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, No. 09-0558 (Tex. June 24, 2011), holding that, under the terms of the Covenants Not to Compete Act, a covenant not to compete signed by an employee in consideration of stock options was enforceable because the company’s provision of stock options was reasonably related to the employer’s interest in protecting its goodwill. This was deemed a business interest worthy of protection, thus the noncompete agreement was not unenforceable on that basis. A motion for rehearing was thereafter filed, and the Court recently withdrew its prior opinion and substituted a new opinion in Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, No. 09-0558 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011).
In Smith v. City of Lubbock, 07-10-0466-CV, 2011 WL 4478494 (Tex. App.--Amarillo Sept. 26, 2011, pet. granted), the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that workers’ compensation laws barred additional recovery against an employer who is a subscriber to workers’ compensation. In this case, the additional recovery is based upon the existence of an uninsured/underinsured auto policy (the “UM Policy”) acquired by the City from St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (“St. Paul”).
This case arose when Smith, an employee of the City of Lubbock (the “City”) was struck by an intoxicated driver while Smith was in the course and scope of his duties for the City. Smith took the position that Texas workers’ compensation laws did not bar an employee from suing his employer on the UM Policy. The City obtained the UM Policy for its employees. As a result of his injuries, Smith received workers’ compensation benefits; however, he also sought benefits pursuant to the UM Policy. Those benefits were denied, and Smith filed suit against the City and St. Paul. The trial court granted summary judgment on behalf of both the City and St. Paul; however, St. Paul has since conceded that it was not entitled to the granting of a summary judgment.
The Southern District of Texas recently provided additional clarification regarding what flood claims under an Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”) were subject to the appraisal clause when there are pricing issues as well as potential coverage issues involved. Ultimately, the Court ruled that because the dispute involved whether a particular item was actually covered under the SFIP, the appraisal clause was not applicable to the flood claim at issue.
Sidney and Bettie Jean Sam (“Plaintiffs”) were insured under a SFIP issued by National Lloyds Insurance Company (“National Lloyds”) pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”). Plaintiffs’ apartment building was damaged by flood waters following Hurricane Ike. National Lloyds sent an adjuster to the property in question, and later paid the Plaintiffs $100,622.67 for the loss.
Continue Reading...The Waco Court of Appeals recently upheld a damages award and permanent injunction regarding the breach of a non-compete agreement in favor of Chris Christensen Systems, Inc. (CCS), a dog product manufacturer and distributor against its former employee, Eric Salas.
The Court of Appeals upheld the default judgment and all damages and held that the non-compete agreement with a five year duration and a broadly defined industry exclusion, as opposed to a geographic exclusion, was enforceable.
Salas had been hired as a VP of Sales and Education Director for CCS and signed a non-compete and confidentiality agreement (the "Agreement") upon commencing his employment. He was then provided with extensive confidential and trade secret information by his employer. After leaving his employment in September 2009, Salas almost immediately began competing against CCS, in violation of the Agreement.
In January 2010, CCS filed suit against Salas seeking a temporary injunction and seeking actual and exemplary damages. The trial court granted the temporary injunction in favor of CCS. Interestingly, Salas filed an answer and appeared at the temporary injunction hearing via telephone with an individual who purported to be an attorney licensed in Florida, but it was later found to not be a licensed attorney in any state. The temporary injunction was granted, and the matter was set for trial.
Continue Reading...
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (NYSE: DPS) has filed a lawsuit against Dr Pepper Bottling Co. of Dublin, Texas in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that the Dublin bottling company has violated its license agreement by selling Dublin Dr Pepper ouside of a six-county territory. Dr Pepper Snapple has also alleged the unauthorized use of the term “Dublin Dr Pepper” on packaging and on merchandise. The relief sought by Dr Pepper Snapple includes restricting sales of "Dublin Dr Pepper" on the Dublin Dr Pepper website and toll-free number. Dr Pepper Snapple additionally seeks attorneys' fees.
Continue Reading...
For the last several months, national health care reform has been debated on television (nearly 24 hours a day), at town hall meetings, and at dinner tables across this country. Whether you favor national health care reform or not, a part of the debate includes a discussion about whether or not liability damage caps for doctors and hospitals should be included in any legislation that is ultimately passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. Historically, the debate about liability damage caps has been left to the States to decide. Now, however, we may see federal liability damage caps for doctors and hospitals for the first time in our country's history.
Recently, in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Randolph W. Pate and C. Andrew Childers laid out the Pros and Cons of liability damage caps for doctors and hospitals. You can read their article by clicking here.
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.
