ILNews

Appeals court: Civil RICO claims not preempted

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not preempt a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claim, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In an issue of first impression, the court was asked to decide in AGS Capital Corp., Inc., et al. v. Product Action International, LLC, No. 49A02-0702-CV-176, whether civil provisions for treble damages based on certain criminal acts are covered by the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act (IUTSA).

AGS Capital Corp., which owned Fast Tek Group and Superior Metal Technologies, was a direct competitor with Product Action International, which is in the business of quality control and most of whose customers are automotive industry manufacturers and suppliers. In order to gain an economic edge over Product Action, AGS owners Alan Symons and Scott Weaver decided to hire for Fast Tek employees of Product Action in order to gain access to confidential information in how Product Action operated. The company hired Anthony Roark and Chan Chanthaphone away from Product Action, and the two brought along confidential information regarding Product Action's systems, methods, and customer information. The company also had the secretary of Superior Metal contact Product Action to get a price quote sent to the company; Fast Tek used that information to set its prices.

Fast Tek copied the Product Action documents and replaced Product Action's name with their own.

Product Action filed a verified complaint for preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and damages against AGS, Fast Tek, Superior Metal, Symons, Weaver, Roark, and Chanthaphone in May 2006. Product Action hired a consultant in computer forensics to perform discovery on Fast Tek's computers. The discovery returned numerous documents showing Fast Tek converted Product Action's documents to say "Fast Tek."

The trial court ruled Fast Tek and AGS are alter egos, making AGS liable for Fast Tek's actions; the defendants violated the IUTSA, which entitled Product Action to injunctive relief; and Product Action proved the defendants violated Indiana's civil RICO statute. The preliminary injunction ordered AGS, Symons, Weaver, Fast Tek, Roark, Chanthaphone, and all the company's agents and employees from contacting or soliciting new business from certain entities for two years, and they are all enjoined from participating in the business of Fast Tek in any form for a year. The injunction also ordered the computer consultant to expunge any information from the computers that was taken from Product Action. Product Action was required to post a $2,000 bond.

AGS appealed, arguing several issues, including the IUTSA preempts Product Action's claims under the state's RICO statute, the preliminary injunction was overbroad, and the bond posted by Product Action was unreasonably low.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled civil RICO actions are not preempted under the IUTSA. Indiana's RICO statute allows for a civil remedy for criminal activity. The IUTSA preemption provision refers to areas of law as a whole as opposed to the national Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which deals in terms of remedies provided. Because of this, the IUTSA preemption provision exempts criminal law and its concomitant criminal remedies, Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote. The court believes permitting a RICO claim along with an IUTSA claim provides for greater protection for the integrity of Indiana businesses.

"Because the RICO statute was designed to address the more sinister forms of corruption and criminal activity, the preemption provision of IUTSA should not prohibit RICO from fulfilling its purpose where the form of corruption involves the systematic acquisition of economically valuable information through the artifice of competitors' employees in order to gain an unlawful economic advantage in the marketplace," Judge Bailey wrote.

The appellate court also affirmed most of the trial court's earlier ruling, including the preliminary injunction and amount of bond posted, except for the barring of participation of AGS and its employees in the business of Fast Tek for one year and the length of time AGS may not solicit customers or business from entities listed in Product Action's Exhibit A in the preliminary injunction hearing. The provision goes far beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect Product Action's interests, he wrote. The court concluded prohibiting the participation of AGS, Symons, and Weaver in the operation of Fast Tek for a year is overbroad.

The court also remanded the trial court to revise its two-year ban on contacting customers to be effective until there is a final adjudication on the merits.

The Court of Appeals also overturned the grant of attorney's fees to Product Action because there is no judgment or settlement by the parties yet and the prevailing party is yet to be determined.

In a separate opinion, Judge Nancy Vaidik concurred in part and dissented in part regarding the majority's conclusions regarding the duration of the preliminary injunction and whether the bond is unreasonably low.

Judge Vaidik wrote no one argued that the injunction should be made longer regarding how long AGS can't contact certain companies, so she believes the two years imposed by the trial court isn't unreasonable.

Also, she wrote the $2,000 bond is unreasonably low and was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. She would remand for a new determination of an appropriate preliminary injunction bond.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT