We’ve just announced our Series A!
Read about it from our CEO.

Volume 48, Issue No. 2 (Fall 2019)

Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) was signed into law in 2013. Prior to this enactment, Texas did not codify a central law governing trade secrets. TUTSA applies to the misappropriation of a trade secret made on or after the effective date (September 1, 2013) of this Act. Since 2013, further amendments have been made to expand and clarify TULSA’s definitions as well as rules, in an effort to provide greater protection against misappropriation claims. This article provides a detailed examination of TUTSA, by discussing trade secret definitions; eligibility requirements for trade secret information; elements of a trade-secret misappropriation claim; remedies under TUTSA and statute of limitation for TUTSA claims.

It has been highly anticipated that changes to Texas Business Entity Laws were to be adopted. In 2019, the Texas Legislature approved numerous amendments to the Texas Business Organization and the Texas Business and Commerce. The new pieces of legislation apply to: Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, Non-profit Corporations and For-profit Corporations. This article provides a detailed explanation of all amendments that were established.

International investment law was born in a day and age when investors located in powerful and wealthy developed countries were looking for protection against expropriation and other arbitrary interference with their investments by undemocratic and unaccountable governments in developing countries. Bilateral and multilateral investment protection treaties were drafted by the developed countries to give rights and remedies to their investors.

In Yamin v Carroll Wayne Conn, L.P. 574 S.w. 3rd 50 (Tex. App. - Houston 14th Dist, 2018, pet. denied) the debtor-appellees took considerable trouble to ensure that assets in the corporation and the shares of that corporation were separate property of the wife. A jury determined that they were in fact community property. The Court allowed an outside creditor to reverse veil-pierce the protections of the corporate veil.

In Nghiem v Sajib, 567 S.W. 3rd 718 (Tex. 2019), two passengers on an airplane were injured in a crash and sued the entity that had recently repaired it. One of the passengers sued after the DTPA's 2 year statute of limitations, claiming to sue under the common law for implied warranty to repair. The Texas Supreme Court determined that there was a common law action for implied warranty t repair, overrulling the lower courts in this case.