ILNews

BrightPoint settles 2 suits against rival Brightstar

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based BrightPoint Inc. has agreed to settle two lawsuits it brought against similarly named rival Brightstar Corp.

BrightPoint, which agreed on July 2 to be acquired by California-based Ingram Micro Inc. for about $840 million, filed the complaints against Miami-based Brightstar in December.

Both suits involved former Brightpoint executives hired by Brightstar who had access to the local firm’s innermost workings and strategies.

The lawsuits, filed in Marion Superior Court, were dismissed Wednesday. Lawyers for both sides declined to comment on the settlements, citing confidentiality agreements.

In one case, BrightPoint alleged that Miljan Milan, who served as general manager for Latin America before leaving the company in April 2011, flagrantly violated the non-compete provision of his employment agreement when he accepted a senior post with Brightstar.

BrightPoint sought an injunction against the company and Milan. The suit alleged breach of contract, breach of Indiana’s uniform trade secrets act, and tortious interference.

“Milan is in a position where the use of BrightPoint’s trade secrets will permit Milan and Brightstar to deploy an unfair competitive advantage in bidding for business against BrightPoint,” the suit alleged.

In the other suit, BrightPoint sued Brightstar over its hiring of Mitch Black, a former senior vice president in charge of BrightPoint’s North American distribution division.

Black had worked at BrightPoint for a dozen years when he left in November 2010 to become president of sales and purchasing at PCS Wireless Inc., a New Jersey firm BrightPoint did not consider a direct competitor. But less than a year later, he began discussions about returning to BrightPoint and also said he had “a very compelling offer” from another company he did not identify, according to the suit.

The BrightPoint discussions were just a ruse to extract additional confidential information Black could use against the company when he joined Brightstar, according to the suit.

In May, a Marion Superior Court judge dismissed a fraud charge against Black.

“BrightPoint is attempting to sustain a claim for fraud against Mr. Black, seeking excessive damages and fees, by attributing to Mr. Black a false statement contained in an unsigned document, which BrightPoint drafted,” lawyers for Brightstar said in their motion to dismiss.

The two firms are global heavyweights in the wireless phone industry. BrightPoint has 3,900 employees and posted 2011 revenue $5.2 billion, while Brightstar has 3,400 employees and had $5.7 billion in revenue last year.

Ingram’s acquisition of BrightPoint is expected to be completed in the third quarter.

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT