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. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT