Monthly Archives: January 2010

JUST BECAUSE THE HORSE HAS STRIPES ON IT DOESN’T MAKE IT A ZEBRA – Business Court Finds “Securities Transaction” Beyond the Reach of Chapter 75

0
Posted by Eric Welsh on January 28, 2010 – 9:05 am
Filed under NC Business Court, South Carolina Law, Unfair Competition

In a decision rendered in October 2009, the North Carolina Business Court dismissed a claim brought under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, finding that the conduct alleged was a “securities transaction” and beyond the scope of Chapter 75. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. Wachovia Bank, National Association, 08 CVS 27739 (Oct. 6, 2009).

In that case, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital brought a series of claims against Wachovia Bank related to a Securities Lending Agency Agreement. It was alleged that under that Agreement, Wachovia was to manage cash collateral investments on the Plaintiff’s behalf pursuant to specific investment guidelines governing the investment activity. It was further alleged that Wachovia made an imprudent investment as part of this securities lending program. The Plaintiff alleged that the investment was too risky and that Wachovia failed to liquidate the investment timely, resulting in a loss of $14 million.

In moving to dismiss the complaint, Wachovia challenged the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices claim on the basis that securities transactions are exempted. Citing Skinner v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 333 S.E.2d 236, 241 (1985), Wachovia argued the Plaintiff’s allegation related to a security transaction and therefore was outside the reach of Chapter 75. In response, the Plaintiff acknowledged that the statute does not govern securities transactions but tried to escape dismissal, arguing that the subject of the claim involved “investment advice” and an “investor/investment advisor relationship,” not “securities transactions.” In advancing this argument, however, the Plaintiff failed to rely on any controlling authority that was apposite to the issues at hand. The Business Court rejected the Plaintiff’s attempt to reclassify its claim.

While correctly noting that the commerce element of Chapter 75-1.1 encompasses a broad range of business activity, the Business Court stated that “it does not cover ‘all wrongs’ in a business setting.” Id. citing Sterner v. Penn, 159 N.C. App. 626, 632-33, 583 S.E.2d 670, 675 (2003). The Business Court went on to cite North Carolina case law that has excluded securities transactions, beyond conventional securities, from the reach of the statute. See e.g. Oberlin Capital, LP v. Slavin, 147 N.C. App. 52, 62, 554 S.E.2d 840, 848 (2001) (Chapter 75 claim dismissed in case involving a loan agreement). Noting that courts have previously held that “transactions entered into for purposes of raising capital also qualify as a ’securities transaction’,” Id., the Business Court found the “securities lending program” at issue in the case to be similar to “raising capital” and therefore beyond the statute’s definition of “in or affecting commerce.”

Ultimately, the Business Court was not persuaded by the Plaintiff’s creative labeling. Reading Plaintiff’s argument, one is reminded of Shakespeare: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The Plaintiff’s argument was certainly not made any easier by the fact that, while at the same time it argued its claim did not involve securities transactions, it brought a separate claim against Wachovia for a violation of North Carolina Securities Act and relied on the same basic facts for both of these claims.

SPORTS MEMORABILIA CARDS PROCESS NOT LIKELY A TRADE SECRET? SAY IT AIN’T SO JOE.

0
Posted by Eric Welsh on January 11, 2010 – 9:00 am
Filed under NC Business Court, North Carolina law, Trade Secrets

In a decision rendered by the North Carolina Business Court in November 2009, Judge Diaz denied a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by plaintiff Napco, Inc. (”Napco”) in connection with a sports memorabilia manufacturing process that it alleged was a trade secret. NAPCO, Inc. v. PBM Graphics, Inc., 09 CCVS 157. While the Court’s order is short on detail, briefs submitted by the parties provide some helpful insight into the Court’s decision. The briefs also help highlight one conclusion to be drawn from the order: irreparable harm may not necessarily exist in a trade secret case.

In that case, it was alleged that Napco developed for PBM Graphics (”PBM”) a manufacturing process for sports memorabilia cards which PBM intended to use in supplying cards to a third-party customer, The Upper Deck Company. The “memorabilia cards” were allegedly different than other sports cards as they would have imbedded in them a swatch of a jersey or a sliver of a broken bat. Napco alleged that it created this process for PBM as a subcontractor, with the assurance that large orders would be placed for these cards as long as a satisfactory product could be produced. Napco further alleged that PBM, having gained access to the process, then misappropriated it for supplying cards to the Upper Deck Company. Napco asserted claims of trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition under North Carolina’s statutes and moved for a preliminary injunction. Interestingly, Napco did not allege that it had formed any contract with PBM or that PBM breached any obligation of confidentiality owed to Napco.

PBM had a different take on the situation, challenging virtually every aspect of the plaintiff’s claims in opposing the motion. Two arguments, however, bear noting. First, PBM argued that Napco’s claim was deficient because Napco “shared its alleged trade secrets without negotiating any obligation on the part of PBM to maintain the secrecy of these purported secrets.” Rather, Napco, according to the Defendant, provided PBM “all its purported trade secrets in the hopes of getting future work from PBM.” Second, PBM argued that Napco understood fully that it was hired to develop the process for both Napco and PBM and if successful, Napco would be awarded substantial work by PBM. “NAPCO’s reward for success was solely monetary” and therefore, plaintiff could not show irreparable harm for an injunction to be granted.

In denying the motion, the Business Court found many failings with the plaintiff’s argument. First, the Court noted was that there was substantial evidence presented that the claimed trade secret, the Napco process for manufacturing the sports memorabilia, did not work. Of course, one requirement of a trade secret in North Carolina is that the alleged secret have actual or potential commercial value. The Court found the evidence wanting in this respect, which obviously posed a hurdle for a preliminary injunction. The Court also found that evidence presented demonstrated that the alleged secret incorporated technology that was widely known and used in the printing industry. Again, this undermined the claim that the alleged secret had actual or potential commercial value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable through independent development.

Of significance here, the Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to show it had taken reasonable efforts to protect its alleged secrets, a fundamental element of any trade secret claim. The Court noted that the parties never negotiated a confidentiality agreement to protect the information or prevent its use by PBM. While Napco relied heavily on logs signed by PBM employees when visiting Napco’s facility as evidence of some agreement not to disclose confidential information, the Court found the language of the log too vague: visitors “may” be exposed to confidential or proprietary information of Napco.

Finally, while finding the Plaintiff had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court also found a separate ground to deny the motion for an injunction: the lack of irreparable harm. Noting that the Plaintiff made no claim that PBM took the alleged secret for any other purpose, the Court found that any damage could be addressed through monetary damages, as the Plaintiff had alleged that it had been promised to be awarded a contract to produce the cards for the Upper Deck Company. The Court reasoned “it should be relatively simple for Plaintiff to calculate its damages, which will be measured either by Plaintiff’s lost profits or the extent of Defendant’s unjust enrichment resulting from the alleged violation of the NCTSPA. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, the Court declines to grant preliminary injunctive relief.” Had the Plaintiff alleged some greater harm — such as the Defendant disclosing the trade secret to others, destroying its value, or using it with other customers — perhaps the Court would have come to a different conclusion on this point.

The Napco decision is interesting in that cases involving motions for preliminary injunctions to protect trade secrets typically do not turn on the irreparable harm component. Here, the Court found that fatal to the motion. But the Napco case also serves as a reminder of the need to take appropriate precautionary steps, through contract or otherwise, to protect the information claimed to be a trade secret. Without such steps, significant hurdles exist to convincing any court that injunctive relief is warranted.

FTC Moves Forward with Stand-Alone Section 5 Claim

0
Posted by Eric Welsh on January 5, 2010 – 3:49 pm
Filed under Antitrust Developments, FTC, Unfair Competition

With its December 2009 issuance of a complaint against Intel (In the Matter of Intel Corp., Dkt. No. 9341), the Federal Trade Commission has re-opened a multi-decade debate about its use of Section 5 of the FTC Act to challenge antitrust-type conduct that cannot be reached by application of the antitrust laws.

This issue has had a rollercoaster ride, starting with the Supreme Court decision of FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson, 405 U.S. 233, 244 (1972), where the Court stated that the FTC had authority to “consider [] public values beyond simply those enshrined in the letter or encompassed in the spirit of the antitrust laws.” Since then, the application of Section 5 as a stand-alone claim for conduct outside of the antitrust laws suffered setbacks with decisions rendered by the Second and Ninth Circuits in the 1980’s and then by the FTC itself in its General Foods Co. case, 103 F.T.C. 204 (1984) where it rejected an attempt by complaint counsel to apply Section 5 to predatory pricing practices that did not violate Sec. 2 of the Sherman Act.

Section 5 was somewhat revived in the 1990’s when the FTC applied it to obtain consent decrees in several “attempt to collude” cases not reachable by the Sherman Act Sec. 1. Despite this attention by the FTC, the weight of scholarly comment remained against such application of Sec. 5.

Despite the well-reasoned commentary, the FTC’s attempt to use Section 5 for claims not reachable by the antitrust laws did not cease. In its settlement in the Negotiated Data Solutions case (”N-Data“) in January 2008 (File No. 051-0094), statements by the commissioners acknowledged that the FTC was applying Sec. 5 but not the Sherman Act to antitrust-type conduct that harmed consumers by undermining the standard-setting process. Two commissioners dissented, including Chairman Majoras who warned that the majority’s failure to “identif[y] a meaningful limiting principle” threatened to take the Commission “down a slippery slope” in its application of Section 5.

The N-Data case led to much speculation about the Commission’s view and use of Section 5 stand-alone claims in the future. Chairman Jon Leibowitz addressed the issue in September 2009 by acknowledging that N-Data “was not an antitrust case because the bad behavior did not cause or increase the firm’s monopoly power” and forecasting: “you are likely to see us try to protect consumers by expanding the use of our authority to prohibit unfair methods of competition.” Remarks of Chairman Jon Leibowitz, 36th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law & Policy, Fordham Competition Law Institute at Fordham Law School, September 24, 2009.

Over the past two years, statements by the Commissioners have fueled the speculation over the Commission’s approach to Section 5’s reach and shined a light on a number of vexing issues. In March 2009, Commissioner Rosch addressed these matters but declined to make any firm predictions, providing instead “tentative views.” See The FTC’s Section 5 Hearings: New Standards for Unilateral Conduct? Remarks of J. Thomas Rosch, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, ABA Antitrust Section, Spring Meeting, Washington, D.C., March 25, 2009. Chairman Leibowitz has expressed his view that Section 5 is not confined by Sherman Act standards: “So everyone can agree (I’ve decided) that the FTC Act goes beyond the metes and bounds of the Sherman Act. The more important question is: how far beyond should we go.” See “Tales from the Crypt.” Episodes ‘08 and ‘09: The Return of Section 5 (”Unfair Methods of Competition in Commerce are Hereby Declared Unlawful”). Remarks of Commissioner Leibowitz, Section 5 Workshop, October 17, 2008. Commissioner Rosch and Chairman Leibowitz have noted that Section 5 would be used as a “gap filler.” Id. Chairman Leibowitz has also expressed reluctance to use Section 5 in the merger context. And Commissioner Rosch has repeatedly discussed application of Section 5 using “appropriate limiting principles.” Id.

Elsewhere, however, the FTC and its complaint counsel have been emphatic in opposing arguments that they sought to apply Sec. 5 to conduct not reachable by the antitrust laws. For example, in In the Matter of Polypore International, Inc., Docket No. 9327, Polypore challenged the FTC complaint for indefiniteness and for failure to state a claim of monopolization and attempted monopolization under Sherman Act standards. Complaint Counsel emphatically denied they were trying to create new law (”There is simply no express or implied attempt here to create new law.” Complaint Counsel’s Response to Respondent’ s Motion for a More Definite Statement, In the Matter of Polypore Int’l, Docket No. 9327 (emphasis in original)) and stated that the “Court need not address whether Section 5 reaches beyond the Sherman Act . . . because each claim in the Commission’s Complaint states a cause of action under traditional Sherman Act standards.” Complaint Counsel’s Response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, p. 4, In the Matter of Polypore Int’l, Docket No. 9327.

Putting the reach of Section 5 to the side, there is also now vigorous debate regarding the standards, also known as “limiting principles,” that should be applied if Section 5 is used as a stand-alone antitrust statute. Commissioner Rosch himself raised many of these difficult questions in the Section 5 Workshop:

“All of this said, however, there exists a myriad of open questions in my mind. Most fundamentally, are my premises right? Put differently, should enforcement of Section 5 be confined to conduct that the Commission also finds does not violate the Sherman Act (or the Clayton Act)? If so, what kind of business conduct besides the conduct challenged in Valasis and N-Data should be covered by Section 5, and what kind of conduct should not be, either on legal or policy grounds? Should conduct that cannot be shown to injure the competitive process ever be considered an unfair method of competition, and, if so, when? How can the Commission avoid creating a rudderless, unbounded standard acceptable to whoever happens to be the majority of the FTC Commissioners at the time? What should be the practical, workable boundaries susceptible to coherent application? How can unfair methods of competition under Section 5 be defined to avoid capturing benign or procompetitive conduct while allowing for sufficient guidance and predictability for business? . . . Can we conclusively say that bringing the statute back to life outweighs any risks?” Welcoming Remarks, Commisioner, J. Thomas Rosch, FTC Section 5 Workshop, Washington, D.C., October 17, 2008.

Commissioner Kovacic also recently noted the unresolved concerns regarding the standards to be applied with a Section 5 claim. The Application of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, William E. Kovacic, U.S. Federal Trade Commission, ABA Fall Forum, Washington, D.C. November 12, 2009.

With these issues still unresolved, the Commission has now marched forward with its Intel complaint, which asserts both Sherman Act Sec. 2 violations and stand-alone Section 5 claims regarding conduct not reachable by the Sherman Act. In an accompanying statement, Chairman Leibowitz and Commissioner Rosch argue the necessity of the Commission bringing a stand-alone Section 5 case because “some conduct harmful to consumers may be given a ‘free pass’ under antitrust jurisprudence.” Statement of Chairman Leibowitz and Commissioner Rosch, In the Matter of Intel Corp., Docket No. 9341. Yet, while later stating that “the Commission is well aware of its duty to enforce Section 5 responsibly,” the questions asked by Commissioner Rosch a year ago remain unanswered. Again, begging Commissioner Rosch’s prior questions, Chairman Leibowitz and Commissioner Rosch state: “Section 5 is clearly broader than antitrust laws, but it is not without boundaries, and the Commission will clearly describe and stay within those boundaries if this case comes before it for review.” Id.

Commissioner Rosch’s dissent is the more interesting document since he objects entirely on “public policy grounds” to the case being based even in part on Sec. 2 of the Sherman Act. He argues that it should have been grounded entirely on Section 5, stating, however, “the reach of Section 5, like any other statute, is not unlimited. I think the Commission can and should define those limitations as they apply to this case.” Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, In the Matter of Intel Corporation, Docket No. 9341.

The Intel case will be very informative to the ongoing discussion over the reach and application of Section 5.

Parker Poe is counsel to Polypore International, Inc. in the FTC action and Eric Welsh was on the trial team.

This blog contains general information that is intended to be used for educational purposes only, and should not be considered or relied upon as legal advice on any specific matter. You should never act upon general information on legal matters without seeking legal counsel regarding your particular situation.

Your use of this blog does not constitute an attorney-client relationship with our firm or its lawyers. This can only be established after a specific engagement has been expressly agreed to between a partner in our firm and a client through direct, person-to-person communication.

Anything you submit through the use of this blog will not be treated as confidential information and may be publicly displayed, distributed or otherwise used.

This blog is also subject to our general Terms of Use for this website.