Business owners in Wisconsin and elsewhere should be free to change company policies if their current policies are hurting their bottom line. This is something clothing retailer L.L. Bean recently did. Now, the company finds itself facing business litigation due to consumers being unhappy about the change.
More and more companies in Wisconsin and elsewhere are going paperless. This is a good and bad thing all at the same time. It may save trees and help streamline information and communication, but there can be issues regarding digital data when it comes to business litigation cases.
A business owner may be sued for any number of reasons. It happens. All he or she can do is try to prevent business litigation by setting up all the necessary legal protections from the get go. But law changes and new court rulings mean that business owners in Wisconsin and elsewhere have to stay up to date and update their practices. Failing to do so could have significant financial consequences.
Company owners in Wisconsin utilize business contracts in order to keep their companies running smoothly. These legal documents hold the signing parties responsible for upholding their end of the agreements. What happens, though, when one side fails to keep his or her end of the deal and negotiations fail to resolve the matter? This is when business litigation may be necessary.
Going into business can be rough. It is not always rainbows and butterflies. It is hard work. To help ease some of the stress associated with owning and operating a company, some people open with a partner or bring one on after the fact. Unfortunately, some Wisconsinites may find that doing so also has its challenges, and certain disputes between partners may require business litigation.
It appears that, lately, sales have been down at physical retails stores here in America. This is what the numbers from a recent RetailNext report point to.
Last time, we looked very briefly at some aspects of Wisconsin’s trade secret law. As we noted, trade secret protection is available not only at the state level, but also through the federal courts. Last year, Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which created a federal cause of action for the protection of trade secrets. Prior to that, the only way to pursue trade secret protection in federal court was to qualify under special jurisdictional rules.
For businesses, protecting valuable business information is important in order to ensure competitors are not allowed to unjustly benefit from the business’ innovation and hard work. There are a variety of tools businesses can use to protect valuable information from competitors. Some of these protections are more formal, such as restrictive covenants and intellectual property protections like patents. Some of the available protections are less formal, like trade secrets.
Last time, we began looking at recent court decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dealing with an issue that is currently the subject of a split among federal courts: whether employees who report suspected violations of the Dodd-Frank Act are covered by that law’s whistleblower protections. As we noted, the court broadened the law’s whistleblower protections to include internal whistle-blowing.
We’ve been looking in recent posts at the topic of whistleblower protections, and the issue of protected activity. As we’ve noted, exactly what activity is protected depends on the specific law under which the violations are reported, and the jurisdiction in which whistleblower protection is sought.