UBS Slammed With Over $11.5 Million in Damages and Costs in Employment Defamation Case. In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Mark Munizzi, Claimant, v. UBS Financial Services Inc., Respondent (FINRA Arbitration Decision)Federal Court Does Not Condone E*Trade's Onboarding Sloppiness But Keeps Injunction Against Former Rep in Place. E*Trade Financial Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Lance Eaton, Defendant (Order, United States District Court for the District of Arizona)SEC Obtains $3 Million Settlement in Insider Trading Action (SEC Release)
Former West Covina Man Charged with Selling Bogus Memorabilia Containing Phony Autographs of Sports Stars, Celebrities (DOJ Release)
[D]efendant alleges that for nearly two years, Plaintiff concealed the existence of another agreement Defendant had signed contemporaneously with the Nonsolicitation Agreement, and that Plaintiff and its attorneys misrepresented such non-existence to Defendant, Defendant's counsel, and the Court. (Mot. at 4.) 1 That agreement, also signed on May 16, 2011 and titled Agreement Regarding Employment and Proprietary Information and Inventions ("Employment Agreement"), contained a California choice of law provision. The Nonsolicitation Agreement, on the other hand, specified no choice of law. The Court therefore applied Arizona law in ruling on the preliminary injunction motion.Defendant argues that the Employment Agreement's California choice of law provision should have governed the parties' dispute. He further contends some of the Nonsolicitation Agreement's restrictive covenants, on which the Court partially predicated its Preliminary Injunction Order, would have been unenforceable under California law. Accordingly, Defendant now moves to set aside the Preliminary Injunction Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3).= = = = =
Footnote 1: Defendant learned of the Employment Agreement and its California law provision in May 2019, when he received it in response to a Request for Production of his E*Trade personnel file that he served in October 2018 in the FINRA arbitration. Plaintiff did not request his personnel file during discovery in this action. (See Resp. Ex. E.)
[P]laintiff created-and last updated-the standard Employment Agreement when E*Trade was headquartered in California. Accordingly, E*Trade included a California choice of law provision. (Persico Decl. ¶ 7.) E*Trade then moved its headquarters to New York in 2004. According to Persico, "[f]ollowing this move, the [Nonsolicitation Agreement] should have been the only agreement governing the solicitation of customers that was provided to employees outside of California." (Persico Decl. ¶ 7.) However, when Eaton appeared for his first day of work in Scottsdale on May 16, 2011, E*Trade was apparently still administering the Employment Agreement- something Persico attributes to an "inadvertently continued and outdated company procedure." (Persico Decl. ¶ 7.)
[Y]ou have advised that E*Trade believes Mr. Eaton has potentially breached certain obligations under a non-solicitation and non-disclosure provision in his employment agreement. This is expressly denied. To the extent such agreement is governed by California law, as previous E*Trade agreements we have reviewed have been, we note the general rule in California is that covenants not to compete are unenforceable.
[F]irst, as Persico notes, the fact that Henneman had seen other E*Trade employment agreements with California law provisions might not necessarily surprise Persico because E*Trade continues to use those agreements with its California employees. (Persico Decl. ¶ 14.) Second, Persico responded to Henneman: "You also mentioned that the Nonsolicitation and Nondisclosure Agreement (‘Agreement') dated May 16, 2011, that Mr. Eaton signed, was governed by California law and was unenforceable as a result. There is no mention of California anywhere in the Agreement." (Mot. Ex. 4 at 4.) It appears Persico understood Henneman's later as referring to a choice of law provision within the Nonsolicitation Agreement, not a separate Employment Agreement.Defendant also directs the Court to May 2019 filings that Plaintiff made in a similar case pending in the Northern District of California. There, Plaintiff explicitly and abundantly refers to both a nonsolicitation and nondisclosure agreement and an employment agreement identical to the Employment Agreement in this case. (See Reply Ex. A.) Defendant characterizes this as hypocritical, as Plaintiff then turns around and maintains in this case that it learned of Defendant's Employment Agreement for the first time in September 2019. The Court disagrees with Defendant's portrayal. As noted above, E*Trade still utilizes the employment agreements with its California employees. In the Northern District of California case, the employee lived and worked in California the entire time she was employed by E*Trade, and then moved to a California office of Morgan Stanley. (Reply. Ex. A ¶ 2.) It would therefore be in E*Trade's regular practice to have a separate employment agreement with a California law provision. (See Persico Decl. ¶ 14.)In short, Defendant has failed to meet his demanding burden of demonstrating fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence. The Court is careful to note that this decision does not condone what appears to be sloppiness on the part of Plaintiff during Defendant's onboarding process in 2011. However, Plaintiff's eight-year-old actions are not at issue in this motion. What the Court must decide is whether Plaintiff's actions throughout this litigation amounts to "defilement of the court itself." The Court concludes it does not.
For months, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been quietly ramping up efforts to hunt for suspicious transactions by using technology to pore through reams of market data, said three people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because the examination isn't public. The goal is to assess whether some traders are getting a heads up before the release of key economic statistics or federal agencies' policy announcements.
The results were disastrous for the numerous victims. Some lost homes that had been in their families for generations, ended up in nightmarish civil litigation, or had to scramble to avoid homelessness. Several of the victims said they have struggled to make ends meet since Henschel swindled them.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp24690-davidson.pdfSpecial Complaint (Murphy Relief Defendant) https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp24690-special.pdf
[B]eginning in 2010 and continuing until this month, Tremayne operated businesses - including Tremayne Enterprises and Timeless Treasures - that sold memorabilia that contained the forged signatures of celebrities and sports stars. Tremayne allegedly hired and paid other people to forge the signatures. The phony goods were sold on the Internet and were shipped via U.S. mail, FedEx, or other private or commercial interstate carriers, according to the indictment. Tremayne allegedly held out that the forged signatures were real.For example, in November 2013, Tremayne allegedly met with a buyer in Ladera Ranch. During that meeting, he allegedly sold for $100,000 approximately 100 memorabilia items with forged signatures, including "Star Wars" Darth Vader and Imperial storm trooper helmets that had forged signatures from actors in the movie series, as well as posters with forged signatures of actors from the "Hunger Games" and "Twilight" movie series.In November 2019, Tremayne allegedly shipped to an FBI undercover buyer a "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" photograph that had forged signatures of three of the television show's personalities.As a result of the scheme, Tremayne and his memorabilia business sold more than $1 million in memorabilia items, according to the indictment. Tremayne has been charged with 13 counts of wire fraud, three counts of mail fraud, and three counts of aggravated identity theft.The indictment also alleges that Tremayne had moved to Mexico to avoid paying approximately $1.4 million in taxes that he owed to the U.S. government.