It is estimated that BP PLC will pay $7.8 billion to resolve medical and economic claims from the worst offshore oil spill in the history of the United States.  The settlement is not capped and the final figure could be lower or higher.

The settlement was made final in a 125-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier.  The judge stated in his ruling that none of the objections raised had shown the settlement to be inadequate, unfair or unreasonable.

Thousands of people chose to opt out of the settlement after Barbier gave it preliminary approval, in order to pursue the cases on an individual basis.  By the December 15 deadline to change their minds, more than 1,700 people had opted back in.

A BP company spokesperson said that the settlement was good for the people of the Gulf region and was in the best interest of BP’s stakeholders, in that years of litigation would be avoided.  BP added that its goals were restoration in the area and the elimination of legal risks.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs that accepted the settlement also said they were pleased it had been approved, as they believed it would bring relief to the people and businesses affected by the spill.

In April 2010, BP’s Macondo well blew out, triggering an explosion that resulted in the deaths of 11 oil rig workers and the leakage of 200 million gallons of oil.  Recreational and commercial fishing and shrimping were stopped for months in much of the Gulf.

Much litigation will still take place, including a trial, scheduled to take place next year, to determine the causes of the blowout and assign fault by percentage to the various companies involved.

People and businesses in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and some coastal areas of western Florida and eastern Texas are covered by the settlement.

According to Barbier, the settlement will prevent extremely lengthy litigation such as that following the Exxon Valdez oil spill.  Barbier has yet to rule on a separate medical settlement for workers who participated in the cleanup and said exposure to oil and dispersant agents caused them to become ill.

Barbier said that BP had already begun paying claims, paying about $405 million during a transitional process and has already authorized $1.4 billion in payments.  Attorney’s fees will be paid separately.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business litigation attorney, Austin business litigation lawyer, Texas business litigation attorney, Texas business litigation lawyer, Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, Austin oil and gas lawyer and Texas oil and gas lawyer. To learn more, visit http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com.

Landowners in Texas, Michigan and North Dakota have filed lawsuits against the company, claiming that Chesapeake reneged on lease agreements. As the price of gas decreased, Chesapeake attempted to cancel hundreds of lease agreements with mineral rights owners, only to be rebuked in court.

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals is one example. Chesapeake attempted to void an agreement with Plano, Texas-based Peak Energy Corp., claiming that the letter of intent both parties signed did not amount to a valid contract. The Fifth Circuit upheld a multi-million dollar ruling from the district court, holding that Chesapeake breached its contract and ordering the company to pay Peak Energy $12,000 per acre. The court’s decision does not bode well for Chesapeake, as the Fifth Circuit covers a large swath of oil and gas land and its rulings are influential in other circuits regarding mineral rights matters. Chesapeake told investors recently that the failure of the hundreds of lease deals had cost the company more than a billion dollars.

Last spring it was alleged that Aubrey McClendon, who founded Chesapeake and served as its board chairman, had taken out more than $1.5 billion in loans that he did not disclose, and that his personal lender was also a Chesapeake investor. The company ousted McClendon as chairman, and the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to investigate financial dealings between McClendon and Chesapeake.

Later in the year, Reuters reported that Chesapeake and its competitor, Encana Corp., had tried to prevent a situation where they would bid against each other in a land purchase. The Department of Justice is now investigating whether or not anti-trust laws were violated.

Chesapeake Energy is the second-largest gas producer in the United States and once held mineral rights to land equal in size to the state of West Virginia.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Shortly after the merger announcement, El Paso shareholders filed a number of putative class action lawsuits against the company’s board of directors, alleging they had breached their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. The suits, filed in Delaware, Texas and New York, also alleged that El Paso and Kinder Morgan aided and abetted the directors in their breach.

According to a recent filing with the SEC, El Paso shareholders moved to block the merger in February of this year, but the motion was denied in a Delaware court.

As of May 24, the merger was complete and settlement discussions, facilitated by a mediator, began between the parties. An agreement in principle for a $110 million settlement was reached in July. The settlement agreement must still be approved by the Delaware Chancery Court.

Kinder Morgan said in a statement that the merger had benefited all parties, including the El Paso shareholders, but that it wished to resolve the claims to avoid the uncertainty and expense of further litigation. A Kinder Morgan spokesperson told Bloomberg News that the acquisition offered a 47 percent premium to El Paso’s shareholders, and that 95 percent of them voted for the deal.

In July, Kinder Morgan officials announced that second-quarter profit had fallen, with net income dropping to $153 million compared to $230 million in the same period the previous year. The company had cut the value of certain assets it sold in order to get regulatory approval for the acquisition of El Paso.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. also made concessions in the settlement deal, due to alleged conflicts of interest. The investment banking firm was a financial adviser to El Paso in the sale, while it owned a multi-billion dollar stake in Kinder Morgan. The firm’s top energy banker also held a personal stake of $340,000 in Kinder Morgan. Under the terms of the settlement, Goldman will waive its $20 million fee. In previous rulings, Judge Leo Strine of the Delaware Chancery Court had pointed out the conflict of interest, and described Goldman’s behavior as “troubling” and “furtive.”

Kinder Morgan and Goldman Sachs officials did not admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Salazar also stands accused of slander and retaliation. Elizondo claims that Salazar’s son, Daniel Cuellar, was charged with marijuana possession and resisting arrest, and that Salazar ordered her to dismiss the charges.

One obvious concern is whether the County Attorney Salazar should have had any involvement with any criminal prosecution decisions related to her own son or whether she should have recused herself on such matters.

Elizondo said that when she realized Cuellar was Salazar’s son, she informed County Court-at-Law Judge Guadalupe Mendoza. She claims her employment was terminated shortly thereafter.

Salazar said that the allegations were untrue and said Elizondo was fired because “she was bad-mouthing me.”

According to Kleberg County Judge Juan Escobar, the Kleberg County Commissioners have been alerted about the allegations, and other agencies may be called in as well.

“The Texas Rangers and possibly the local sheriff’s office could be involved,” Escobar told KRIS TV. “Even the FBI, if there are some federal charges. So all three agencies could get involved.”

Salazar confirmed that a State Bar grievance has been filed against her. Elizondo has not yet filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, but Salazar said she will defend any such lawsuit vigorously.

By claiming to be a “whistleblower,” Elizondo is likely referring to what is commonly known as the Texas Whistleblower Act, or Texas Government Code section 554.002, which prohibits public employees in Texas from being terminated after they report official wrongdoing in good faith. Government employees who alert the appropriate entities when they observe a violation of the law are protected from retaliatory action in regards to their employment, including termination or other adverse personnel action.

Under the law, a whistleblower may file a lawsuit for reinstatement and for damages including lost pay, court costs and attorney’s fees. The Texas whistleblower statute applies only to government workers and provides no protection to employees of private companies. Certain other statutes offer protections to other types of “whistleblowers.”

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

The dispute stems from the fact that Airbus had been discussing the designs with Aviation Partners for five years, reports the Wall Street Journal. They even had a memorandum of understanding to create a joint venture. But all the while Airbus was creating its own model to “keep its options open.” When Airbus showed Aviation Partners the Sharklet sketches, the company claimed it was similar to their blended winglets and demanded royalties.

Airbus then filed a federal lawsuit against Aviation Partners seeking to invalidate the winglets patent and avoid royalty payments. The two parties are now warring over which court should hear the case. Airbus filed suit in Austin, Texas’ U.S. District Court. Aviation Partners wants the case moved to Seattle where it is based.

Aviation Partners asserts this business litigation and patent case is a classic example of a big company trying to exert its influence over the underdog. Aviation Partners has 13 employees and yearly revenue of just under $500 million. Airbus and its parent company bring in $60.4 billion. Airbus feels differently and says that the winglet patent royalty demands are “…a significant hindrance” that makes them have a “…complete disadvantage.”

The lawsuit comes down to wanting a bigger share of the global aircraft market. For example, Southwest Airlines has blended winglets on at least 80 percent or more of their Boeing 737s. Currently, 100 other airlines use them too.

Patent disputes such as this one merit an aggressive business litigation attorney to resolve the matter in the most expeditious, cost effective way. These issues can impact a business’ bottom line and battles over coveted intellectual property assets merit a skilled litigator to uphold a business’ rights. The stakes are high, so retaining a patent attorney that is skilled in the technical details and is a respected opponent in the courtroom is key.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business lawyer, Austin patent attorney, and Austin business litigation attorney. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.

When Aston Meadows bought the land, no oil and gas production was occurring. But in 2007, they sued Devon and its parent company for allegedly drilling horizontally under their property. Aston claimed that Devon’s lease was invalid because it was not recorded in Tarrant County’s records. Aston claimed they were owed damages for trespass, conversion, breach of contract and unpaid royalties, and that they were entitled to injunctive relief.

The Texas Property Code generally provides that a property transaction is properly recorded when it is recorded in the county wherein a “…part of the property is located”. This thereby gives notice to everyone of “…the existence of the instrument”. When a piece of land crosses multiple counties, if a transfer involving that land is recorded in either county, it is usually deemed sufficient constructive notice to all persons of the transfer.

Since the lease owned by Devon Energy spanned two counties and was recorded in one of them, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Devon’s favor.

Oil and gas disputes can be complex. They involve precious land assets and may turn on intricate issues of title. Aston Meadow’s title policy did not show the lease as an encumbrance. Nevertheless, Aston lost their case. This case illustrates why it is crucial to have a knowledgeable and experienced Texas oil and gas attorney in your corner if you are dealing with an oil company or involved in an oil and gas dispute.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin oil and gas attorney, Austin oil and gas litigation attorney, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Gilbert was a pharmacist at CVS since 1999. She worked her way up to the position of pharmacist in-charge. In August of 2009 she told her district pharmacy supervisor that she had a disability and requested accommodations. After that, Gilbert asserts her supervisor began to harass and retaliate against her. Gilbert claims that in March 2010, the supervisor told her that she had three complaints against her. By the time her employee review came around in August 2010, she received an unfavorable review. She was written up due to the complaints and her pay raise was affected. On January 3, 2011, she was discharged from her job.

Gilbert alleges that because of her request for a disability accommodation, she was treated differently. Such retaliation would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act as it is illegal to retaliate or terminate an employee based on their disability. A disability generally also cannot be made the basis for discharging, demoting, or changing other terms and conditions of a person’s job. Persons with a history of disability, new concerns stemming from a disability, or limitations from an existing disability cannot be treated badly because of their condition.

Employers are usually required by law to provide reasonable accommodations to employees or job applicants unless it would create undue hardship to the employer. They cannot discriminate based on a disabled person being unable to carry out functions that are not essential to the job. Reasonable accommodations may include helping an employee perform his or her job duties, access the benefits and privileges of the job, and even assist a disabled person to apply for a position in the company. Harassment is also illegal and includes situations where offensive remarks become so persistent or severe that it makes the work environment hostile or offensive.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Justice and the Texas Workforce Commission are all involved in disability matters. All employers, including local and state government, with 15 or more employees are required to follow the ADA. Individuals who believe they may have a disability discrimination claim are strongly advised to contact a knowledgeable Austin Employment Attorney prior to going to the EEOC or TWC. Employers who have concerns about applying the ADA or who have experienced a claim are encouraged to do the same.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin employment lawyer, Austin disability discrimination attorney and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Dailey alleges she was terminated because she was pregnant. The case documents allege that Prestonwood’s human resources director said their “…insurance bills were too high and employees don’t need to be having babies.” Dailey alleges gender discrimination and seeks recovery of front and back pay, compensatory and exemplary damages, and related legal fees. As the Director of Nurses at the Prestonwood facility, Dailey asserts she was in charge of supervising 100 nurses.

Generally speaking, an employer cannot terminate an employee because the employee becomes pregnant. Likewise, an employer subject to the Family and Medical Leave Act cannot terminate an employee for seeking FMLA leave due to pregnancy. FMLA leave can be used for the birth of a child and the first few months of taking care of a newborn. An employee is allowed to use 12 workweeks of unpaid leave under these and other medical circumstances.

Additionally, an employer is required to maintain group health insurance coverage for an employee on FMLA leave. When relevant, employees will still need to pay their portion of the premiums. These health benefits can generally only be stopped if the employee alerts the employer that she will not be returning to work or fails to return to work when the FMLA timeframe ends.

When a worker returns from FMLA leave, she is generally entitled to resume her previous position in the company or hold an equivalent one with similar pay, benefits, status, and other terms of her employment. Workers cannot be subjected to retaliation or discrimination for using FMLA leave.

Pregnancy discrimination is against the law and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits employers from discriminating against pregnant employees. That said, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has noted a rise of 81 percent in alleged pregnancy discrimination cases between 1992 and 2010.

If you are an employer who has been accused of pregnancy discrimination or you are an employee who has been subjected to pregnancy discrimination, you should contact a knowledgeable employment attorney to protect your rights.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin employment lawyer, Austin business attorney, and Austin pregnancy discrimination lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Yet at the same time, some oil and gas pipeline companies have been wielding their influence to take advantage of the situation and exercise their eminent domain powers at the expense of landowners. Numerous companies are vying to construct pipelines across thousands of miles of land to handle the new production. Earlier in the year, pipeline companies could claim eminent domain to acquire an easement on a coveted piece of mineral-rich property with few restrictions. Texas law allowed them to do so and the only recourse landowners sometimes had was to try to negotiate for compensation or possibly face a lawsuit from the pipeline company.

But since Sept. 1, Texas law now says that pipeline companies must make a good faith offer to the landowner and give the landowner more time to respond to the offer before the company can file a lawsuit. There are numerous other requirements that pipeline companies must now meet and there are also numerous additional rights and protections that have been granted to landowners. Lawsuits have gone up sevenfold in the last year as companies vie for their piece of the Eagle Ford shale. Individuals and communities have shown concern about the pace of development and their rights being suppressed.

A skilled Texas oil and gas attorney can give legal guidance to landowners to ensure they are having their rights upheld, know their options, and that an offer is adequate and fair. Any offer a pipeline company gives should be based on numerous factors, including a current appraisal of the land or easement’s value. Should negotiations break down, a skilled oil and gas lawyer can be critical for having the landowner’s concerns addressed in a courtroom. An Eagle Ford oil and gas attorney can also assist when an oil and gas lease dispute arises or conflicts over mineral rights, drilling, or environmental issues surface.

The Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan counsels individuals and landowners in the Eagle Ford Shale area of south Texas. Texas oil and gas lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has decades of oil and gas industry experience, not only from the legal perspective, but also from his background as a petroleum landman and petroleum engineer.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin oil and gas attorney, Austin business attorney, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

There are, however, a number of suggestions that generally apply that could lessen the likelihood of having a discrimination claim made against you or make it easier to defend against such a claim. First, if such a claim has been made, care should be taken to determine whether the alleged harasser or discriminator and the alleged victim should be separated or placed on leave. Appropriate managers should be informed and it should be stressed that retaliation will not be tolerated. If there are upcoming performance reviews or planned business changes, consideration should be given to whether such matters will give an appearance of retaliation.

Of particular importance is when an employee makes a discrimination claim and the employer needs to go over a negative employment review or is aware of an impending wave of layoffs. When an employee has made a discrimination charge, being laid off can be a huge opportunity for that person to claim retaliation. Employers should make sure their practices steer clear of being construed as retaliation.

One of the more important steps an employer can take to lessen the likelihood of being successfully sued for discrimination is to keep good records. Recordkeeping provides concrete evidence of job performance factors that occurred before the employee claimed discrimination. Disciplinary actions and poor performance should be well documented. If they are not, you may be left with a swearing match over the quality of an employee’s performance. Another step that can lessen the likelihood of discrimination claims is to require that all promotions/demotions be approved by a second-line supervisor.

Another means to lessen the likelihood of a discrimination claim is through training. Employers and workers can benefit from training to educate them about the pitfalls of discrimination and how it should be thoroughly avoided in the workplace. From seminars to online modules, employers can encourage such education. Training can help prevent discrimination, negative and false stereotypes, and subconscious bias that can sometimes take over a business’ hiring and promotion practices, as well as performance evaluations and other routine tasks in the workplace.

Employers should contact a skilled discrimination attorney in order to lessen the risk of discrimination and retaliation claims. A knowledgeable attorney can discuss the important steps to take to ensure your business is complying with the law and help educate managers to make wise decisions. A good attorney can be both proactive to lessen the likelihood of a suit and reactive to lessen the impact of a suit.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

It all started when Barousse was riding in a company-owned auto during a sales call and a truck ran into them. Barousse was the central Texas region sales director. He sought medical attention after the accident, but paid for these bills himself as he believed Hertz did not want workers’ compensation claims. As his injuries were too extensive, Barousse ultimately had to file a workers’ comp claim and recuperate during a month-long leave of absence in October.

While he was gone, his boss and the region’s human resources manager began to prepare performance improvement reports showing his lack of sales and an action plan for every 30 days for the next 90-day period when objectives were not met. In November, he returned to work and was given the corrective measures he needed to meet to achieve his manager’s and the company’s goal. But by the end of that month, Barousse was again in excruciating pain. Doctors advised that he would need several months before he could return to the workplace.

Hertz Rental Cars started an initiative to restructure its employees and a regional vice president tagged Barousse as a possible candidate for elimination. Other sales directors were given alternate employment within the company when their positions were either consolidated or done away with completely. The trial evidence showed that Hertz decided to conceal their displeasure with his workers’ comp claim and medical leave, and kept Barousse unaware while he has gone.

In October of the next year, Barousse was cleared to return to work. The first day back he was asked to go to the human resources office and was told he was being laid off with a severance package. Barousse did not sign the release for the severance and instead filed suit. At trial, the Texas court found that Hertz violated the state’s workers’ comp anti-retaliation statute and awarded Barousse $665,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The only change on appeal was to vacate the $100,000 punitive award.

In Texas, the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan has represented employees and employers in employment lawsuits for over 20 years. Austin employment attorney and Austin business lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has substantial experience in employment lawsuits, including wrongful termination and retaliation claims, as well as a wide range of business disputes.

To learn more, please contact Austin noncompete lawyer, at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.
Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas alleges that Dublin Dr Pepper has infringed on the parent company’s trademark and diluted it, practiced unfair competition, violated numerous license agreements, and breached its contract.

“In the simplest terms, the bottler in Dublin is using a logo that is no longer authorized and is taking business from fellow Dr Pepper bottlers who play by the rules and sell within their defined territories,” said Jim Johnston, president of beverage concentrates for DPS. “We owe it to our other bottlers to stop these unauthorized practices.”

Dr Pepper, like many other soda and beverage companies, has been using retro logos in its sales and marketing campaigns throughout the last year. But these campaigns are for a limited time and with specific guidelines for its bottlers. Dublin Dr Pepper has six logos that use images from the days of soda fountains, Texas flags, patriotic designs, and the town name to woo consumers. The bottling company has a big local presence and online demand. Many fans love the fact that Dublin Dr Pepper uses pure cane sugar in its drink versus anything synthetic to sweeten it.

But the parent company says Dublin Dr Pepper is over-reaching its six county selling territory of Comanche, Eastland, Erath, Hood, Hamilton and Bosque. Soft drink companies give rights to bottlers for exclusive territories that are enforceable via the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act of 1980. The act is in place to prevent cut-throat competition and foster profitability among bottlers. Yet violations can also cause contract terminations from the parent company and licensee, which could put the bottler in a tough spot. DPS licenses the Dr Pepper brand to 170 bottlers throughout the U.S. and Canada.

“We have been a loyal partner to Dr Pepper Snapple longer than any other bottler, and we’ve worked successfully with several different ownership groups for our parent company to become one of the company’s most successful franchisees,” Dublin Dr Pepper said on its website. “It is unfortunate that Dr Pepper Snapple’s attorneys are asking our overburdened court system to resolve what we believe is a business matter, but we look forward to telling our side of the story before a judge and jury, and we will continue to provide great products and great service to every one of our customers.”

Other bottlers and DPS say that Dublin Dr Pepper is cutting in on their profits by selling the soda and also clothing and related merchandise through its website, restaurants, retailers, and solicitations on Facebook. DPS alleges that Dublin Dr Pepper is profiting from consumers in New York, California, and even nearby in Collin County in the city of Plano. The license agreement the two signed in 2009 purportedly prohibits such sales.

In Texas, Austin business litigation attorney, Austin franchise attorney and Austin business lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has represented individuals and businesses for more than 20 years. He is knowledgeable and experienced in a wide range of business and litigation matters. The Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan is known for aggressively defending their clients’ interests in mediation, negotiation, and litigation. To learn more, please contact Austin business litigation lawyer and Austin business attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Veh and Bippus were reported to be responsible for the engineering, geological, and geophysical work on Ramerio. They allegedly made the Ramerio Prospect seem like a viable well, a lucrative project, and enticed Fort Apache to spend $200,000 on Ventum’s professional services. As more work ensued, Ventum explored Ramerio with a test well, the Sjolander #1 Well, that turned out to have no oil and only a zone “occupied by saltwater”.

Fort Apache contends it later learned that Ventum and its agents made false representations and prepared estimates based on a nearby well, the Tenneco Well. Fort Apache says that, “Had all of the scout tickets and historical information been evaluated in creating the Estimation, it would have been obvious that the targeted sands as seen in the Tenneco Well would not be productive in the Sjolander #1 Well.”

According to the brief, Ventum allegedly knew all along that the Ramerio was not a good investment. Fort Apache is charging Ventum and its agents with professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, failure to disclose facts, vicarious liability, and Texas Securities Act violations. This suit will likely prove to be a complex case involving multiple disciplines in the oil and gas industry.

Austin, Texas oil and gas attorney Gregory D. Jordan not only understands the oil and gas industry from a legal perspective, but also knows the business from his time as a petroleum landman and petroleum engineer. Disputes over leases, royalties, property damage, and contracts happen frequently, and unfortunately some individuals and companies resort to unscrupulous tactics in the quest for profits. Jordan gives businesses, landowners, and individuals legal counsel in all such situations. He has more than 30 years of experience with the oil and gas industry. To learn more, please go to http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

As game companies, developers, and all the employees in the electronic gaming industry line up to get their share of the profits, there are inevitably some struggles over creativity, intellectual property, and fair competition. Protecting a company’s creative assets often becomes mission number one. No wonder we’re seeing lawsuits such as the one filed by Wildcat Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC against some of the biggest names in gaming.

In the suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Wildcat alleges patent infringement of its 2001 U.S. Patent No. 6,200,216 for an “Electronic Trading Card” for use in consumer digital media. The alleged infringers include: 4Kids’s and Chaotic’s Chaotic online trading card game; Electronic Arts BattleForge videogame; Konami’s Marvel trading card videogame; Yu-Gi-Oh! Online Duel Accelerator videogame; Nintendo’s and Pokemon’s Pokemon Trading Card GameOnline; Panini’s NFL Adrenalyn XLonline game; SCEA’s The Eye of Judgment Legends videogame; SOE’s Legends of Norrath online trading card game; Topps’ Toppstown online trading card game; Wizards’ Magic Online game; and, Zynga’s Warstorm game.

This patent case may be extremely relevant to gaming companies involved with packaged software games, mobile games, online social games, gaming consoles and devices. The alleged Wildcat infringers are said to be using the patented card format and code segments to electronically trade scarce cards and games. This case “…could affect the future direction of the [trading card] hobby”, some say.

As more people gravitate to virtual and electronic cards, not to mention the potential for future augmented reality cards, those who own the programming and backbones behind such a digital card can be as important as the final product. With so much at stake, there is clearly a need for a skilled patent attorney to counsel clients involved in patent, copyright, or trademark disputes in this area.

Austin patent lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has years of experience representing businesses and individuals in intellectual property disputes. To learn more, please contact Austin patent attorney and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

When these two hair stylists and cosmetologists terminated their employment on April 13, 2010, they started a new salon within the off-limit radius. Jon Scott allegedly started to get an extraordinary amount of no-show appointments and cancellations. At the original trial, Jon Scott claimed breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information, theft, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial judge threw out the case due to their at-will employment, but in the appellate court, the judge said that status does not bar their employment contract responsibilities. The lawsuit will now go back to the trial court to decide if the hair stylists violated the noncompete agreement.

The appellant opinion stated that, “…once the employer fulfills the promise to divulge the confidential information, the contract becomes enforceable and may support a covenant not to compete.” By signing the documents and using the salon for, “…opportunities and resources to develop contacts and goodwill, they agreed to refrain from using the goodwill for the benefit of any person or entity other than appellant [Jon Scott Salon].”

In a personal-service industry such as a hair salon, non-compete agreements can be vital to the business’ success, especially with the high employee turnover that the industry has. It’s not just high-paid technology, sales, or CEO positions that may warrant these types of agreements to safeguard a company’s client base, and marketing and sales tactics. Texas law on noncompete agreements has changed dramatically over the years, and courts look to numerous factors to determine enforceability.

Disputes involving noncompete agreements can be complex, so having a knowledgeable business attorney on your side – whether you are a business owner, individual, or employee – is advised.

Austin noncompete attorney, Austin business attorney and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience working on behalf of individuals and businesses in many diverse industries. He can help answer questions about the enforceability of these agreements and what conduct is allowed under a noncompete agreement. To learn more, please contact Austin noncompete lawyer and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

When MRO was served a letter ending the agreement on April 18, MRO started looking into why Dresser-Rand terminated the relationship. MRO’s lawsuit and complaint documents in Texas’ 113th District Court allege that the contract ended because Dresser-Rand said that MRO’s founder had acted improperly at a social gathering they hosted. MRO says this is “bogus” and alleges that Dresser-Rand wrongfully ended the contract and owes it $38.9 million in damages.

MRO focuses on technical and service-related risk management products for power plants and the energy industry. Dresser-Rand’s maintenance products, heavy industrial turbines, and steam turbines were a good fit for MRO’s many energy industry clients.

“Even if these specious allegations were completely true, Dresser-Rand still had no contractual right to terminate the agreement,” the complaint says. Instead, MRO claims Dresser-Rand might have not realized the true cost of the contract, Dresser’s senior personnel might have viewed them as a threat or did not want them to work for a competitor, or wanted to scale back its operations with power plants.

When businesses are faced with complex contract disputes and terminations, it is imperative that they get legal counsel early on. Austin business litigation attorney and Austin breach of contract attorney Gregory D. Jordan understands the importance of resolving business disputes quickly and efficiently. Most business disputes can be settled short of litigation; yet if litigation is the only route, you want a trial attorney that will aggressively pursue and protect your business’ rights.

At the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan, Austin business litigation lawyer and Austin breach of contract attorney Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience successfully representing businesses and individuals in business contract disputes. To learn more, please contact Austin business attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

“Skilled legal counsel can help you untangle difficult situations,” said Austin oil and gas attorney Gregory D. Jordan. “If you are a mineral owner who is considering signing a lease or you are concerned that an oil company may not be performing as it should on your property, it’s a good idea to talk with knowledgeable legal counsel. The decisions you make about your minerals could impact the remainder of your life.”

Oil and gas law is a unique legal field. Most attorneys have little or no experience with it. When someone is confronted with an issue involving leasing acreage or an oil and gas dispute, it is important for them to know whether their attorney is knowledgeable in this area. Just as you would not go to a podiatrist to perform heart surgery, it might not be in your best interests to seek legal advice on oil and gas matters from an attorney who lacks experience in this area.

“At times, dealing with an oil and gas company can make someone feel like they’re on a rollercoaster,” Jordan said. “A good oil and gas attorney can give his client confidence in going over the bumps. He should be able to intelligently discuss the law in this area so a client can make informed decisions.”

It is helpful if an oil and gas attorney has substantial experience in the oil and gas industry so that he will understand his client’s needs. For example, Jordan notes that he has been involved in the oil and gas industry for more than 30 years, and before obtaining his law degree, he worked as a petroleum landman and petroleum engineer. Since becoming a lawyer he has experience in:
– negotiating oil and gas leases for landowners and oil companies
– representing oil and gas companies and individuals before the Railroad Commission
– working with engineers and other technical experts
– counseling mineral owners and oil companies on their rights and options
– property damage claims
– claims regarding royalty payments
– claims involving purported property development issues
– unitization and pooling disputes
– processing or gathering of oil and gas production complaints

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin, Texas oil and gas attorney, Austin business litigation lawyer and Austin business attorney. To learn more, please go to http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

The federal lawsuit of Castaneda v. the City of El Paso asserted that food truck vendors’ constitutional right to “earn an honest living free from unreasonable and arbitrary government interference” was violated. The City of El Paso was stifling competition, a basic principle of capitalism, they said. The Institute of Justice initiated this lawsuit as part of their National Street Vending Initiative to uphold the rights of street vendors everywhere to run their businesses.

“Using government power to place burdensome restrictions on street vendors in order to protect brick-and-mortar businesses from competition is not a valid use of the government’s police power,” said Arif Panju, an attorney at the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter.

El Paso’s food truck vendors can now sell almost anywhere and are now permitted to park curbside during breakfast, lunch, or dinner rush times. Beforehand, they were only allowed to park if customers were already present and had to drive away when no one was flagging them down. “All I want to do is work,” said Maria Robledo, one of the plaintiffs, who has had her food truck business for 13 years in the city. “I am happy that the city is not going to stop me from running my business.”

In most cities, food trucks must pay sales tax, pay fees and obtain permits to be a street vendor, and pass fire department inspections as well as health department inspections. In Austin, Texas, where a thriving food truck scene exists, the city recently tightened its rules, requiring food trucks to even file their truck routes. Food trucks are a booming industry in Austin, with an estimated 1,620 mobile food vendors expected by the end of 2011. The Economist Magazine states the sentiment of consumers is that, “…trucks offer cheap, often innovative dining. They also permit a degree of whimsy that may seem cloying in a restaurant. Trucks will never supplant restaurants. But so long as money remains tight, they will provide a welcome and increasingly prevalent alternative.”

Food trucks dotted throughout the city sell sandwiches, tacos, barbecue, desserts, and even gourmet and rare foods. Nationally, a food truck chef was named one of the best chefs in the U.S. and even food trucks have earned Zagat ratings. Thus, it is no wonder that these businesses are now more likely to seek legal representation to assert their rights.

Austin restaurant attorney and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience working on behalf of individuals and businesses in the restaurant industry. He represents clients when disputes arise due to financing and loans, equipment leasing, franchise agreements, supply and distribution agreements, intellectual property rights, noncompete agreements, partnership and joint venture agreements, as well as claims against insurers. To learn more, please contact Austin restaurant attorney, Austin business lawyer and Austin business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

The lawsuits in Jefferson County District Court are currently underway. The plaintiff argues that Allco was paid by Beaumont Independent School District (BISD) but Allco never paid Steel Masters. The steel work for Amelia Elementary encompassed the new 93,500 square feet facility. Overall, the total budget from the school district for construction reportedly equaled close to $21 million and it took a little less than two years to complete the entire project.

Separately, at Blanchette Elementary, the facility totals 85,593 square feet and was said to involve a little over $17 million in final construction costs. The Steel Masters lawsuits state that Allco’s owner, T.W. Harrison, misapplied funds. When construction finished, Travelers Insurance issued a payment bond to BISD. This payment is earmarked to protect unpaid subcontractors, but when Steel Masters requested Travelers to pay the $91,745.40 it was owed, the suit alleges Travelers refused to pay it.

Construction payment disputes like Steel Masters’ can be complex. It is critical that a business get expert legal counsel early on to protect their interests. Sometimes a matter must go to litigation like the Steel Masters cases; at other times, legal representation will encourage the opposing party to resolve the matter by mediation and faster financial settlements. Austin business litigation attorney and Austin construction litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan knows the importance of resolving business disputes quickly and efficiently.

Construction contracts are often lengthy documents with many potential traps for the unwary. Unfortunately, large construction projects often end with disputes or litigation. Likewise, insurance claims related to such projects can be difficult to collect on. Businesses often find they obtain better results when they hire an experienced and qualified business lawyer to pursue these matters for them. At the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan, Austin business litigation attorney and Austin construction litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience representing businesses and individuals in construction and other business-related disputes. To learn more, please contact Austin business litigation attorney, Austin construction litigation lawyer and Austin business attorney Gregory D. Jordan at http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Toby James, the whistleblower, took over Chris Orlaska’s accounts, another salesman at Conceptus. Quickly he discovered that Orlaska was allegedly improperly selling or giving away the devicemaker’s Essure kits and that some physicians were potentially illegally billing Medicaid for the free kits. After speaking with various nurses, James cross-referenced sales reports and asserts he found little data to back up the kits that were in their possession. James indicates he reported the incident to his manager, and ultimately his manager’s boss when no action had been taken. After a meeting with the boss, he says he was encouraged to email the head of human resources regarding the issue.

In a twist of events over a two-week period, James was fired and then sent a harsh letter from a lawyer that Conceptus hired. James maintains that he was protected from retaliation by the False Claims Act, Section 3730, part h, which encourages employees with knowledge of fraud to come forward by prohibiting retaliation against those employees. Section 3730 also includes the entitlement to relief for: “job reinstatement with the same seniority status such employee would have had but for the discrimination, two times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

The case will be an interesting one to watch unfold as pharmaceutical companies are already in a pressure-cooker situation with numerous reported fraudulent and unethical incidents plaguing the industry. Combine that with wrongdoers who have been accused of making illegitimate Medicaid claims, and it’s a toxic situation.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) established a code that outlines best practices for the pharmaceutical industry. “Pharmaceutical company representatives play an important role in delivering accurate, up-to-date information to healthcare professionals about the approved indications, benefits and risks of pharmaceutical therapies,” PhRMA stated in its “Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals”. “Company representatives must act with the highest degree of professionalism and integrity.”

Even Conceptus’ Code of Ethics from September 2010 says that, “If you know of or suspect a violation of the Code, feel uncomfortable about a situation or have any doubts about whether it is consistent with the Company’s high ethical standards, seek help.” Conceptus employees must sign an agreement whereby they acknowledge, “I am not aware of any unreported violations of the Code, and agree to report any violations or concerns in the manner described in the Code.”

Is there a double standard? Perhaps. But either way, Mr. James was very wise to seek an attorney to protect his rights.

Oftentimes, the best asset an employee has is independent legal counsel that can bring knowledge of all sides of employment law. Austin employment attorney and Austin whistleblower attorney Gregory D. Jordan has a wide range of experience in employment law and represents both employees and employers in vigorously upholding their rights. With more than 20 years of experience in employment litigation, Jordan has counseled on such topics as wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, harassment, whistleblowers, overtime and wage claims, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. To learn more, please go to http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com or call (512) 419-0684.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

The owner of Courtyard Apartments is dealing with major water drainage issues and damage since the Dickinson Independent School District (DISD) built the Sam Vitanza stadium and a parking lot next door. The apartment owner, Multi-Family Baker LLC, tried to resolve the problems with pooled water and poor drainage with the school district, its general contractor and architect with no success. They also tried to get DISD to correct damage the construction had allegedly done to its apartment trash area.

“Each [of the Defendants] knew that its failure to construct adequate drainage structures was causing storm water to drain to, and collect and back up in the Courtyard Apartments’ north parking lot,” Multi-Family Baker said.

DISD, Durotech GP LLC, Durotech Inc. and PBK Architects Inc. are now being sued in the 122nd Judicial District Court in Galveston County for not building drainage structures that would have allowed storm water to move northward from the Courtyard Apartments’ north parking area into drainage ditches to the east and west. Damage to the Courtyard Apartments parking areas and asphalt has occurred.

Texas Constitution Article 1, Section 17, “prohibits taking, damaging, destruction, or application of a person’s private property for public use without adequate compensation.” Multi-Family Baker alleges that DISD invaded its property, unreasonably interfered with its operation, and is in violation of the Texas Water Code. The Texas Water Code Section 11.086 states that, “no person may divert or impound the natural flow of surface waters in this state, or permit a diversion or impounding by him to continue, in a manner that damages the property of another by the overflow of the water diverted or impounded.” And, “a person whose property is injured by an overflow of water caused by an unlawful diversion or impounding has remedies at law and in equity and may recover damages occasioned by the overflow.”

Claims of negligence, interference, and trespassing occur in this case, and in many construction lawsuits. When working to resolve these types of claims it is usually advisable to hire an experienced construction attorney. An experienced construction litigation attorney should be able to cut through much of the extraneous material and work to determine the cause of construction-related problems whether they result from design errors or the disregarding of laws, permits, and building standards. This may involve the use of technical experts skilled in specific construction fields. It may also involve the use of economic experts to determine how the construction problems affected the value of the business in the short term, what damages were inflicted, and what funds will be needed to correct the problems.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

The dispute arises because of Abbott’s Humira drug, which produces pharmaceutical antibodies to treat arthritis and other immune conditions. Back in 1991, Centocor submitted a patent application for its drug that contained both a mouse and chimeric antibody. Simultaneously, Abbott pushed to create a fully-human antibody.

Centocor proceeded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office submitting many continuation-in-part applications, including one in 1994 detailing the chimeric antibody with a mouse variable region. In 1996, Abbott’s patent entailed a “high affinity, neutralizing, A2 specific, fully-human antibody.” By 2002, Abbott was given the green light to market Humira. The patent for Centocor’s distinct chimeric antibody was still being processed in 2002.

The appeals court found that the 1994 CIP did not have a sufficient description about human antibodies or human variable regions to claim patent infringement. “A mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed invention is not an adequate written description,” the appeal decision stated. Thus Centocor did not have constructive possession of the same patent or key parts of the Abbott patent.

Big pharma is big business. Abbott’s Humira is its best moneymaker with $6.55 billion in worldwide sales last year; Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade stacks up with $4.61 billion. Patent, copyright, and trademark disputes can compromise a business’ profits, marketing, and public relations. Expert legal counsel to ensure a business’ hard work stays in good hands is critical. To protect and help a business flourish, an experienced attorney is recommended early on to ensure patent documents and business proceedings are done properly with respect to the innovation and effort involved.

In Texas, Austin patent attorney and Austin business attorney Gregory D. Jordan has served diverse clients in intellectual property disputes. With an engineering degree and background as well as legal experience in this area, the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan represents both intellectual property rights owners and alleged infringers.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Vincent Staub filed a grievance after he was let go as an angiography technician at a Peoria, Ill. hospital as he felt he was let go because of his bosses “hostility toward his military obligations”.

Staub sued saying that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) forbids an employer from denying “employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment based on a person’s membership in or obligation to perform service in a uniformed service and provides that liability is established if the person’s membership is a motivating factor in the employer’s action.”

Both of Staub’s direct supervisors were found to be seeking to discharge him. Evidence was found and inferred that they were displeased by his U.S. Army Reserve duties that mandated he train full time two to three weeks a year and attend drill one weekend a month.

His direct supervisor scheduled extra hours without care to the Reserve requirements and ultimately designed a special “corrective action” that made him stay in his work area even when he was done with patients. When Staub left his boss a voicemail as asked when he was going to leave his desk and did not receive a phone call back, he was found to be in violation of the rule.

Even though he was fired by human resources, the court found that the actions of Staub’s two immediate supervisors plus their annoyance at his military duties supported his claims. Staub’s case has had numerous twists and turns as the first jury awarded him $58,000 in damages, then in a federal appeals court the decision was reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the jury verdict saying that his managers influenced human resources to make an incorrect firing decision.

With numerous military bases in Texas, employers and employees in this state should pay close attention to this case. Human resource and employment managers should make sure actions against employees are truly a result of rule violations, not personal biases. Employees who serve in the military should be aware of their protected rights.

Austin employment attorney and business litigation lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience representing employers and employees with their employment matters. Jordan has a long, successful track record of tenaciously representing his client’s interests as an Austin discrimination attorney and Austin employment attorney.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Many facets of the contract were disputed during the trial. First, when Scorpion faced drilling process problems they asserted that the work changed from turnkey to daily charges. Scorpion had difficulties setting the intermediate casing and proceeding to production depths. They also encountered premature flowing and the wellbore fell in on itself. Also, Scorpion felt Mohican was obligated to provide them with a mudlogger to help drill the well, or at the very least, they were owed money for delays and damages incurred. The jury had to assess if Chapco served as the Texas Railroad Commission-named operator and answer numerous other questions.

“Individuals and businesses cringe when contract disputes arise and monies owed change along with timeline goals being missed,” said Gregory D. Jordan, Austin business attorney and Austin oil and gas lawyer. “No contract is perfect, but a good business attorney should be able to answer the tough questions when a client feels the contract they’ve entered into isn’t being upheld.”

With oil and gas exploration increasing, there is an increasing need for business attorneys with specialized knowledge in oil and gas exploration. Gregory D. Jordan has over 30 years of experience in the oil and gas industry as a petroleum landman, engineer and attorney. He represents individuals and businesses in trials, arbitrations, and mediations and has experience with the Railroad Commission and Texas Workforce Commission. Jordan has over 20 years experience as an Austin oil and gas attorney, Austin business lawyer and Austin business litigation attorney.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Royall filed the lawsuit claiming that Main and her publisher, Encounter for Culture and Education, defamed him and “hurt his feelings”. His attorneys insist that Royall is a “private citizen who never sought publicity and who values his privacy.”

The lead attorney for Main contends that the developer may disagree with the book, but criticism is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. In the courtroom, neither the developer nor his attorneys apparently showed that the facts in the book are untrue. Main and her publisher wrote in the appellant’s reply brief that, “Encounter did publish a book about a controversial redevelopment project in which Royall had a leading role. Yet, the courts do not exist to protect hurt feelings and they certainly do not exist to allow participants in controversial public projects to squelch critical political speech.”

Bulldozed is about the seizing of private property from people and communities that did not have the ability to fight back. Main focuses on current events regarding eminent domain, including when Royall signed a development agreement in Freeport, Texas where the city took land owned by a longstanding shrimping business, Western Seafood, so that Royall could build a luxury yacht marina.

Main’s lawyers argued that eminent domain and major development projects involve public issues and thus are not subject to defamation claims and that there is no legal basis to ban distribution or further printing of the book. Her lawyers stated that any conclusions Main has raised from the facts, predictions about Royall’s development, and political views are protected under the First Amendment and cannot constitute libel.

In a defamation case, an individual plaintiff must usually show among other things that the defendant published a false statement that damaged his or her reputation and that the defendant acted with negligence or an otherwise sufficient state of mind. Austin defamation lawyer Gregory D. Jordan is watching the case closely as more defamation lawsuits are appearing where First Amendment rights are being asserted. Jordan is an accomplished Austin trial lawyer with more than 20 years of experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in defamation cases.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

The Shelby County jury sided with the plaintiffs, who claimed that SouthWestern Energy Production Co. (SEPCO) stole their trade secrets and profited from them. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $11.4 million in compensatory damages, finding that SEPCO had violated the Texas Theft Liability Act by misappropriating trade secrets and had committed fraud related to a confidentiality agreement in 2005 pertaining to two oil and gas prospects in East Texas.

In addition, the jury found that, for purposes of disgorgement, SEPCO’s profits were $381.5 million, which the court may or may not order SEPCO to pay to the plaintiffs as part of any judgment.

The history of this dispute goes way back to the late ’90s, when Berry-Helfand and Muncey developed an allegedly exclusive method for gathering and analyzing data from many wells in the region, estimated to be over 100. The two and another geologist and defendant, Leon Wells, devised a method that could allegedly determine the prime locations for booming horizontal gas well drilling.

The attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the case, said “In a nutshell, they came up with a very sound method to determine the actual [well] locations, called the sweet spots, of where you would want to drill horizontal gas wells in this formation.”

An amended petition filed by SEPCO alleged that the defendants violated the law and breached their fiduciary duty along with breaking confidential relationships with SEPCO relating to the two prospects in the Texas James Lime formation.

SouthWestern has indicated it will consider appealing any judgment from the 273rd District Court. In the past six months, SouthWestern has lost approximately 17 percent of their market value.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Jury selection for the new trial is slated for April 29. The IDG News Service said that Judge Everingham found the court had “erred when it admitted [Chistopher] Bakewell’s testimony and his damages model. That error affected SAP’s substantial rights.”

The judge’s comments were in response to SAP’s motion that was filed in October 2009. SAP argued Christopher Bakewell’s expert testimony should have been stricken because of the use of his improper methodology. The motion stated, “Mr. Bakewell improperly relied upon the entire market value of SAP’s accused products … in urging the jury to award a running royalty of $70 for every one of the 2,792,199 SAP user ‘seats’ included in his royalty base.”

Originally, Versata alleged that SAP’s Business Suite software and services violated several of Versata’s patents when it was formerly called Trilogy Software. Versata sells product configuration products as well as business rules management and other products.

The original trial lasted seven days and the jury reached its verdict after deliberating for six hours. The jury came to a decision that SAP had infringed upon Versata’s two software product patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 B2 and U.S. Patent No. 5,878,400 when SAP sold and distributed their SAP CRM and ERP products.

Since Versata’s beginning in 1995, it had produced revolutionary technology that efficiently processes complex pricing structures in their patented multi-level pricing tables that SAP allegedly infringed upon.

Versata announced at the end of the jury trial that they were intending to seek a permanent injunction against SAP to prevent them from infringing on their patents in the future.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

In an effort to regulate trains in Texas, the Texas Railroad Commission was formed by the end of the 19th century, thereby making it one of the oldest regulatory groups. However, today it has evolved into a world energy pricing superpower that even OPEC modeled itself after. The three elected Texas Commissioners serve six-year terms, staggered so that there is one on the ballot every two years.

Currently, the Texas Railroad Commissioners regulate quite a bit as the industries that fall under their umbrella include gas, oil, surface mining, pipelines and gas utilities. None of this is really evident by the Texas Railroad Commission title alone. Therefore, a reform seeks to change its name to Texas Oil and Gas Commission and enlist five appointed board members in lieu of the three elected officials.

Money continues to pour into whoever holds the commissioners’ positions, making it bothersome for reformers who seek to take the political clout off the ballot and rename the commission. The Sunset Advisory, a legislative agency made up of state lawmakers who reviews the commission’s performance every 12 years, brought up that by replacing elected officials with appointees, will hopefully reduce the conflict of interests that have made these positions enticing to power-hungry politicians.

Up to even the most recent elected commissioners, some went on to become ambassadors; some have achieved or are running for Senate seats. It is hoped by some that the Texas Railroad Commission will be abolished altogether and its replacement will instead focus on efficiency, conservatory and safety programs. The oil and gas industry are seeking to fight these reforms and probably will just opt for the name changes.

State Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) gives the Texas Railroad Commission a very unsatisfactory grade regarding the Sunset Advisory’s report.

“We need to change the way the commissioners are formed,” Burnam said. “We need to change the fact that this is probably the most corrupt regulatory agency in the state of Texas, and that’s hinted at very clearly in this report.”

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

An investigation was prompted by the Department of Labor earlier in the year with claims that the company, Gate Guard Services, violated the Labor Standards Act of 1938. But it was the plaintiff who denied the allegation and contends that the contractors they hired were indeed self-employed under FLSA standards because of the nature of their jobs.

Gate Guard Services disputed the Department of Labor’s findings because they claim that the independent contractors, who were responsible to log in and recorder all drivers’ names upon entering the oil field, were not their direct employees, but were essentially self-employed. The workers were required to obtain the drivers’ information such as license plate numbers, next of kin, and up-to-date emergency contacts, in case of an emergency.

These independent contractors are required to provide their own tools, their camper and other equipment, sleeping only five to eight hours, as per their shift, in a 24-hour period. They are also paid $100 to $175 per day, with three meals a day, uninterrupted, and are allowed time for personal affairs when there are no vehicles present. Therefore, according to the lawsuit, Gate Guard Services did not provide instruction or kept daily interaction with the independent contractors other than once-a-week while servicing the septic tank.

The Department of Labor has found that Gate Guard Services owes approximately $6.9 million dollars in back wages to the independent contractors, including payment for overtime since July 2008.

However, the plaintiff has stood its ground against the allegations and requested the Department of Labor change its classification from employees to independent contractors. They said that they had complied FLSA wage provisions, stating that the independent contractors were on standby “waiting to be engaged” in between recording the entering vehicles in to the logs and therefore do not get paid for the down time. Therefore, by definition, independent contractors are considered self-employed and are not covered by the same provisions and expectations as an employee of a company under labor and tax laws.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Unfortunately, common sense will only go so far and supervisors may not always use it. It is a good idea to have an anti-discrimination policy in place and make sure managers and employees are trained to know what is expected and what should be done if discrimination is encountered.

It is almost imperative that, as a business owner, you should get the message out that discrimination will not be tolerated by anyone in your organization. One of the best ways to “get the message out” is to have a well-written anti-discrimination policy that outlines what is expected. Your policies should also identify to whom complaints of discrimination should be made, and all managers should be trained on what to do if they receive a complaint.

It is especially important to train your decision-makers. Supervisors and managers should be trained to identify and understand discrimination in its many forms, such as claims based on disability, gender, age or other protected status. Supervisors should be made to understand that it is important to document events and carefully maintain that documentation. If a situation appears serious, you may want to consult counsel.

It is also important to train managers about making personnel decisions. A poorly planned and poorly documented job termination or hiring is sometimes an invitation to a charge of discrimination. Therefore, documenting everything is also imperative, including things such as an employee’s work performances. All documentation should be based on facts and should be done in a timely and pertinent manner.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you want to take proactive steps to avoid discrimination suits, consider hiring an experienced attorney to assist you with your antidiscrimination policies and employee training.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Robert Wood Johnson, a New England druggist, went in business with his brothers, James Wood Johnson and Edward Mead Johnson. They began making medical dressings in 1886 in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Today, Johnson & Johnson is internationally known to be one of the largest and the most diversified health care firms. They operate in three business segments: pharmaceuticals, medical diagnostics and devices, as well as the consumer business segment.

The jury found that Abbott Laboratories owed Johnson & Johnson $504 million in patent royalties based on the sales of Abbott’s Humira arthritis drug and an additional $1.17 billion for decreased sales of Johnson & Johnson’s competing treatments. An additional $175.6 million was later added by the trial judge for interest, bringing the total judgment to $1.84 billion.

In early November, Abbott’s lawyers appeared in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to argue that the judgment should be overturned, at least on the basis that the underlying patent issued to New York University and Johnson & Johnson’s Centocor unit is invalid. Abbott’s contention is in part that Johnson & Johnson’s patent doesn’t cover the human antibodies used in Humira and that it is invalid because scientists in 1994 (the date set as the time of invention by the court) could not make fully human antibodies in a laboratory against TNF, supporting the argument that no one could claim an invention because no one knew it even existed. (TNF is the abbreviation for Tumor Necrosis Factor and it has been found that too much TNF in the body causes the immune system to attack healthy tissue that leads to inflammation. Humira blocks action of TNF, which causes the inflammation.)

While the size of the judgment in the Abbott case is unusual, Abbott’s defense is not. Whether a patent infringement verdict is worth $1 million or $100 million, defendants in patent infringement cases will almost always attack the validity of the plaintiff’s underlying patent. Whether Abbot will succeed is something we will likely not know for some time.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

No marriage has ever survived without at least an occasional disagreement, and partnerships are no different. The question becomes what do you do when the inevitable dispute occurs? Do you get a partnership “divorce” or do you find a way to work around the disagreement?

Most partnership disputes involve one of the following issues: (1) partner compensation or expenses, (2) business expansion or contraction, (3) changes in a partner’s family or marital status that affects the partnership, (4) a desire by one or more partners to exit the business or (5) changes in economic conditions. Naturally, the first thing you will likely try to do when confronted with a partnership dispute is to try to talk things out. However, if you suspect your partner may have done something illegal or may have tried to take advantage of you, then you should talk with a lawyer who knows partnership law without delay.

Partners owe each other a fiduciary duty. That is generally the highest business duty that one person can owe to another. The Texas Business Organizations Code in conjunction with the partnership agreement often governs the rights and responsibility of each of the partners. If you are involved in a partnership dispute, make sure the lawyer you hire has a good understanding of the applicable statutes and that he or she is well versed in contract law. Also, ask your lawyer whether a quick injunctive action might be helpful. Sometimes the best way to avoid a protracted and expensive legal fight when a partnership dispute cannot be resolved is to seek a temporary restraining order or injunction from the court that will bring the central issues to a head.

As in any relationship, minor disagreements will occur between partners. Most of the time such disagreements can be resolved, but if you face a serious matter that you believe merits legal assistance, look for an experienced partnership lawyer that knows the law and will stand up for your rights.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

On Sept. 20, Glenda Spoon, a former Texas community supervision officer, filed a whistle-blower suit against 336th District Judge Laurine Blake, the Fannin County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (FCCSCD), Fannin County Criminal District Attorney Richard Glaser, and its director, Debra Roberts.

Spoon alleges she was terminated because her supervisors said she went outside the chain of command to report alleged violations of state law concerning certain probationers destroying legal documents and other illegal activities. In her original petition, Spoon stated that prior to her termination she never received any adverse employment reprimands or reports. However, on June 23, Spoon was told to resign or she would be terminated. Spoon allegedly refused to resign and was then immediately terminated. Spoon alleges that Blake, Glaser and Roberts worked together to silence her and deprive her of her civil rights. Spoon’s case is still ongoing.

Another case in Amarillo, which was recently resolved, involved two former road department employees, Kevin Bates and Joe Reynero. Bates and Reynero were fired in December 2004. They won their case (although Kevin Bates died in 2006) against Randall County in late October 2010. Bates and Reynero were fired after complaining to authorities that the road department was allegedly performing illegal dumping and allowing some of its drivers to operate vehicles without a commercial driver’s license. Mr. Bates’ widow has stated that now she hopes the department will issue an apology to her deceased husband.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business lawyer; an Austin employment attorney andAustin business litigation attorney who has substantial experience representing whistleblowers and can advise them of their rights and options and help them receive compensation for lost wages, future wages and damages such as psychological and mental anguish.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

If a non-compete signing or the aftermath of such a signing is on your horizon, seeking the services of an attorney who is competent in Texas law, experienced in sundry business disputes, and knowledgeable about the knotty particulars of Lone Star State employment law is a given. But how can you be sure that you’ve chosen the right lawyer for a non-compete?

Generally speaking, a non-compete clause or a covenant not to compete is a provision in a contract under which one party (typically an employee or seller of a business) agrees not to pursue a similar profession or trade in competition against another party (usually the employer or buyer of a business). Without a clause like this in place, a former employee or business owner might begin working for a competitor or perhaps worse, initiating a similar business.

Prior to 2006, Texas courts had historically been very reluctant to enforce many non-compete agreements. In that year, however, the Texas Supreme Court overturned years of established law when it decided the case of Sheshunoff v. Johnson. Suddenly, Texas courts were much more likely to enforce non-compete agreements. That trend has continued with cases such as Mann Frankfort Stein v. Fielding. Typically, disputes on enforceability of non-compete agreements center on whether appropriate consideration has been provided and whether the restrictions are reasonable.

If you are considering entering into a non-compete agreement or are involved in a dispute over a non-compete, you would be well advised to hire an attorney who is up-to-date on the latest developments in this fast changing area of the law. The right non-compete lawyer should be able to explain the law, clearly advise you with respect to your options and aggressively handle any litigation if the disagreement cannot be favorably resolved.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Becoming a whistleblower can be akin to walking barefoot over a field of thorns. In fact, exposing practices of even the most blatant instances of fraud and corruption to the harsh glare of public scrutiny can be a complicated and even perilous proposition. Attempting to blow the whistle without consulting an attorney may expose one to a great deal of unnecessary risk. But how can one choose the right whistleblower attorney? What can be considered the “right stuff” when it comes to hiring such a lawyer?

It goes without saying that a whistleblower attorney should be more than competent and duly experienced with cases involving government agencies and major corporations – especially in civil suits, where such cases often begin. An average citizen is rarely versed in the nuances of the Texas Whistleblower Act or other relevant state and local statutes, but the right whistleblower attorney should be. A citizen whistleblower might even be entitled to just compensation if an outrage is exposed as a consequence of the whistleblowing citizen’s precise knowledge and information – especially in cases where that expertise becomes influential in helping prosecutors recover money from companies or individuals. The right attorney should have well-rounded experience in whistleblower cases.

If you are an employee who is experiencing retaliation after reporting corrupt government activities or other violations of law, you should obtain a lawyer who can protect your rights. A good whistleblower lawyer should have extensive knowledge and experience in combating retaliation from public employers. A good whistleblower lawyer can explain the law in this area; advise you of your rights and options; intercede with your employer when appropriate; and aggressively prosecute your lawsuit if your case cannot be reasonably settled.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

As the law currently stands, attorneys outside of the Ninth Circuit who represent clients on a contingency fee basis cannot take a tax write-off for case related expenses in the year they are incurred. Since expenses on contingency cases often run into the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, this tax law has greatly discouraged attorneys from assisting clients who can only afford to seek justice on a contingency basis.

Legal Newsline cited a speech at the American Association for Justice, the trade association for the trial bar, in Vancouver where one of the group’s leaders told members he’s expecting a Treasury ruling on the write-offs soon.

So are the rumors true? For now, Treasury isn’t commenting. Similar situations have resulted in such rulings sooner rather than later, perhaps more so during the volatile economic times of the past several years.

Apparently at the heart of the matter is an April letter Sens. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) and Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) sent to Michael Mundaca, assistant secretary for tax policy, seeking clarity on the 9th Circuit ruling in the 1995 case of Boccardo v. Commissioner.

In the Boccardo case, the IRS asserted that out-of-pocket expenses incurred by attorneys on behalf of clients while prosecuting contingency cases are not deductible because the law firm expects reimbursement upon getting a settlement or judgment. The Tax Court agreed.

The 9th Circuit took up the matter. The letter sums up the ruling like this:

The court “held that attorneys who represent clients in contingency fee cases may treat litigation costs that are paid by the attorneys, such as filing fees and witness expenses, as deductible ordinary and necessary business expenses . . . when the attorney and client agree to a specific fee arrangement known as a gross fee contract.”

The IRS issued a memo saying that the ruling applied only to attorneys in the 9th Circuit. But the Tax Court has since recognized the validity of the decision in at least one other case, according to the letter.

Sen. Baucus introduced legislation in 2008 to allow attorneys to take an immediate deduction for attorneys’ fees in contingency cases in order to provide tax fairness. U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter tried to include a similar write-off in a 2009 tax bill. Such a write-off is extremely significant and could lead to firms taking on more cases.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Former employees of the bankrupt Arrow Trucking Co. may file additional wage claims against the bankruptcy estate because the former Tulsa flatbed carrier violated federal employment law, a federal judge has ruled. Judge Terrence L. Michael of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma said Arrow violated the federal WARN Act when it closed its offices and discontinued operations Dec. 22 without giving prior notice to employees.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires companies that employ more than 100 people to give each employee at least 60 days written notice of a closure and the termination of their employment. Failure to provide the notice can make employers liable for 60 days of wages per employee, the law says.

Michael approved a stipulation by Arrow’s bankruptcy trustee, Patrick J. Malloy III, that Arrow violated the WARN Act before it filed for bankruptcy Jan. 8. The judge agreed with Malloy that Arrow’s former employees are entitled to file WARN Act wage claims against the bankruptcy estate.

When Arrow shut down, it had about 1,400 employees, including about 1,000 drivers, company executives said. Malloy said after the hearing that unpaid wages and delinquent taxes are priority claims in a bankruptcy case.

“They (former Arrow employees) have a right to file a claim of wages owed but not paid and (claims for) WARN Act damages,” he said. “The combination of the two cannot exceed $10,950.”

Malloy said it is possible for former Arrow employees who are not owed wages to still have WARN Act claims against the estate. Drivers, for instance, weren’t paid salaries but were compensated when they presented documentation establishing that they delivered freight. If a driver wasn’t owed wages by Arrow or couldn’t prove it, the driver still could have a WARN Act claim, the law says.

On Dec. 21, Transportation Alliance Bank of Ogden, Utah, cut off Arrow’s fuel credit cards, stranding hundreds of drivers around the country without fuel or money to get home.

The next day, Arrow executives told employees to leave the offices.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

“The Quixtar case is important because it clarifies Texas law pertaining to whether a lawsuit can be dismissed for a lack of convenience,” asserts Austin, Texas-based business litigation attorney Gregory D. Jordan. “The Court made it very clear that if you are sued by an out of state plaintiff, the trial court should afford substantially less deference to the plaintiff’s forum choice when the trial court is deciding whether to dismiss a suit on convenience grounds.” Mr. Jordan continues, “In my opinion, this case should make it much easier to convince a trial court to dismiss a lawsuit if the plaintiff is from out of state.”

In Quixtar, Inc. v. Signature Management Team LLC, the Texas Supreme Court addressed a situation where the trial court had dismissed a lawsuit filed in Collin County, Texas, between two Michigan businesses based on common law forum non conveniens. The Court of Appeals had reversed the dismissal, holding that the trial court abused its discretion. The appellate court noted that suit could have been filed in Michigan, but held that the defendant did not meet its burden to show that the private and public interest factors of the forum non conveniens analysis strongly weighed in favor of dismissing the suit filed in Texas. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the suit.

Quixtar is a Virginia Corporation with a principal place of business in Michigan. Signature Management Team is a limited liability company organized in Nevada with a principal place of business in Michigan. Quixtar, a successor to Amway, is a MLM (multi-level marketing) corporation that sells products through a network of individual business owners (IBOs), including some in Texas. Signature Management is a tools company that sells marketing tools, self-help books, seminars, and motivational speaker appearances to IBOs. Quixtar also owns a training system and sells similar tools to IBOs, making it a direct competitor to Signature Management. Quixtar alleged that Signature taught IBOs improper and potentially illegal business-building techniques that put Quixtar’s entire operation at risk.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

The important non-compete cases of Sheshunoff v. Johnson and Mann Frankfort Stein v. Fielding have come and gone. Even though the Texas Supreme Court articulated new standards in these cases for determining whether a non-compete agreement is enforceable, there’s still a great deal of rancor and disagreement over non-compete agreements in Texas. Why?

The short answer seems fairly straightforward. Although a non-compete agreement can protect one’s business, it can just as easily destroy another’s livelihood. “When a company’s survival may depend on enforcing a non-compete, but that same non-compete may effectively kill a former employee’s ability to earn a good living, disagreements are bound to occur,” says Austin, Texas-based business litigation attorney and employment lawyer Gregory D. Jordan. “If you are considering signing a non-compete agreement, or if you are involved in a dispute over a non-compete, you need a good lawyer.”

A pertinent issue about non-compete agreements is their enforceability. “Whether a non-compete is enforceable is often a question of whether the consideration for the non-compete is legally appropriate,” Jordan says.

The Sheshunoff case revisited the court’s 1994 decision in Light v. Centel Cellular Co., and overturned years of established law in Texas. The Court held that a non-compete agreement with an at-will employee could be enforceable if the employer promised to provide confidential information to the employee at some time in the future. The Mann Frankfort Stein case, on November 13, 2008, extended that holding to say that the promise from the employer could be implied. “It did not have to be in writing or even spoken,” Jordan says.

The ongoing disputes over non-competes tend to focus on two areas: (1) is the agreement enforceable and (2) are the restrictions reasonable. There have been dozens of appellate cases dealing with non-competes decided since Sheshunoff, and there are more and more creative arguments being raised on each of these issues.

“The bottom line,” Jordan says, is that “non-competes in Texas continue to be an evolving area of law. It will be very interesting to see how the courts will address all of the new arguments that are being raised to attempt to enforce these agreements or to invalidate them.”

To learn more visit, http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com.