Kennedy Law, P.C.

MalwareHunterTeam announced yesterday that a new ransomware hack is circulating that not only encrypts your files, but also tries to steal your PayPal credentials with an included phishing page. Once the victim’s data is locked, the victim is provided the option to pay the ransom with Bitcoin or PayPal. Because a far larger number of potential victims have active PayPal accounts than Bitcoin trading platforms, the intended target here is the person using PayPal.

If the victim chooses to pay using PayPal, the victim is led to a clever phishing site designed to steal the victim’s PayPal credentials. The logic here is simple: if the victim was gullible enough to fall into a ransomware trap in the first place, the victim will be at least as gullible (if not desperate) when it comes to paying the ransom. Here is a screenshot of the email:

If the victim opts for the PayPal Buy Now option, the victim will be brought to a phishing site that appears to be an authentic PayPal page:

When the victim submits his or her PayPal information on the phishing site, the victim is then redirected to a page requesting the victim’s address and other personal information.

After completing all the forms, the victim is told that his or her has been unlocked and redirects the victim to the normal PayPal login page, where the victim is prompted to login.

I’m Shocked: Gambling at Rick’s…

This is why it’s important to brush up on data management policies.

The upshot: Ransomware criminals are utilizing shrewder methods to steal money from their victims. This highlights the importance of analyzing any web page that you visit before you enter login credentials. If the address looks strange or does not match its content, do not enter your credentials and leave the page immediately.

The city of Fort Worth fired Police Chief Joel Fitzgerald Monday

Former Fort Worth Police Chief Joel Fitzgerald is coming out swinging after being fired on Monday. His attorney says the firing is retaliation for his blowing the whistle on cybersecurity problems in the city's IT department.

Then on Tuesday, the attorney, Stephen Kennedy, filed an affidavit that accused the city of destroying evidence.

After a public firing, Fitzgerald's attorney painted a very different picture of what he said went on behind the scenes.

"He had a target on his back and the city was looking for a reason to get rid of him," Kennedy said.

Kennedy claimed it went back to an internal memo Fitzgerald sent in December, warning that the city was violating federal regulations on how to access a critical FBI database.

"That includes people's fingerprints, their DNA, police reports, etc.," Kennedy said. "If you are not in compliance with those regulations, you can lose access to that very important data."

In the memo, Fitzgerald said the city wasn't using the required encryption technology.

"Hackers could have gotten into the database," Kennedy said.

And that city employees with criminal records were being allowed to access it.

"The city has had several felons and people with misdemeanors, who are either permanently or temporarily banned from seeing the information, have access to it, even to this day," Kennedy said. "And so the city has fabricated its compliance with that specific federal regulation."

Kennedy filed a new affidavit Tuesday from an IT employee who's accusing the city of destroying evidence by deleting city workers' instant messages regarding the whistle blower complaints from Fitzgerald and two IT workers.

"The city wants to cover up all of the information that it possibly can," Kennedy said.

The city denied destroying evidence.

"It is our belief that the City has complied with putting an appropriate legal hold on all pertinent records and the allegations are untrue," Assistant City Manager Susan Alanis said.

The post Kennedy Law Wins Final Judgment for $6.5 Million appeared first on Kennedy Law, P.C..

March 07, 2019 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time

Originally published on https://www.businesswire.com.

DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dallas-based law firm Kennedy Law, P.C. announced that it won a final judgment for $6.5 million for Commerce Street Capital against First United Bank & Trust Company and Durant Bank Corp. for breaching an investment banking agreement. The final judgment, entered by Judge Martin J. Hoffman on February 22, 2019, follows a unanimous jury verdict handed-down on October 22, 2018. The Dallas jury found that First United and Durant Bank Corp. failed to comply with a contract for investment banking services relating to a $450 million transaction where Durant Bank Corp. acquired American Bank of Texas in 2016.

Dallas-based law firm Kennedy Law, P.C. announced that it won a final judgment for $6.5 million for Commerce Street Capital against First United Bank & Trust Company and Durant Bank Corp. for breaching an investment banking agreement.

Greg Massey, CEO of First United and Durant Bank Corp., testified live at trial that Commerce Street Capital was not owed a fee for any investment banking services performed. Lacy Harber, the former owner of American Bank of Texas, also testified at trial through a deposition claiming that no fee was owed. Both Greg Massey and Lacy Harber pointed to Dallas lawyer Phil Whitcomb of Munsch Hardt, who advised American Bank on the deal, and gave them the legal opinion that Commerce Street was not owed a fee.

The jury disagreed, however, and ordered that Greg Massey’s company pay Commerce Street $4,600,000 in actual damages and $1,000,000 in compensatory damages. Judge Hoffman, in his final judgment entered on February 22, 2019, tacked-on an additional $975,000 to compensate Commerce Street attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest. The $6.5 Million judgment follows a multi-million dollar employee lawsuit against Lacy Harber in December of 2016 stemming from the same transaction with First United Bank & Trust Company and its affiliated holding company Durant Bank Corp. Harber settled that suit on undisclosed terms.

Commerce Street Capital was represented by veteran Dallas trial attorney Stephen A. Kennedy of Kennedy Law, P.C. “We made a clear argument to the jury that First United Bank &Trust and Durant Bank Corp breached the agreement with my client. The jury agreed, and we’re pleased with the result,” said Mr. Kennedy. He expects the defendants to appeal.

Case Number: DC-16-14703 Texas 68th Judicial District, Dallas County

MalwareHunterTeam announced yesterday that a new ransomware hack is circulating that not only encrypts your files, but also tries to steal your PayPal credentials with an included phishing page. Once the victim’s data is locked, the victim is provided the option to pay the ransom with Bitcoin or PayPal. Because a far larger number of potential victims have active PayPal accounts than Bitcoin trading platforms, the intended target here is the person using PayPal.

If the victim chooses to pay using PayPal, the victim is led to a clever phishing site designed to steal the victim’s PayPal credentials. The logic here is simple: if the victim was gullible enough to fall into a ransomware trap in the first place, the victim will be at least as gullible (if not desperate) when it comes to paying the ransom. Here is a screenshot of the email:

                                If the victim opts for the PayPal Buy Now option, the victim will be brought to a phishing site that appears to be an authentic PayPal page:

              When the victim submits his or her PayPal information on the phishing site, the victim is then redirected to a page requesting the victim’s address and other personal information.

After completing all the forms, the victim is told that his or her has been unlocked and redirects the victim to the normal PayPal login page, where the victim is prompted to login.

I’m Shocked: Gambling at Rick’s…

The upshot: Ransomware criminals are utilizing shrewder methods to steal money from their victims. This highlights the importance of analyzing any webpage that you visit before you enter login credentials. If the address looks strange or does not match its content, do not enter your credentials and leave the page immediately.

  The post Latest Hack Steals Both Your Data And Your PayPal Account appeared first on Kennedy Law, P.C..

On July 20, 2017, I posted blog entitled Hate Speech Online. That blog recounted the disastrous consequences that one potential client endured after posting a hateful statement on Twitter. A third party that the potential client did not know re-posed the tweet for the purpose of vilifying the man and then sent a screenshot to the potential client’s employer. Within three days, the potential client was terminated. His tweet went viral before he could delete it. When his name is searched, a person can still find the message he posted on social media.

Online Hate Speech

This blog revisits the issue of what I call online hate. In the last week, I have seen two more instances of online hate resulting in unfortunate consequences. The now-former headmaster of my oldest son’s private school, whom I have known for more than ten years, sent a private message on Twitter to the lawyer representing a woman that Judge Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted. The message was laced with profanity and it should never have been sent, even in a private message. You can guess where it went from there.

The lawyer, who is well-trained in the art of making other people look bad and hungry for media attention, took a screenshot of the profanity-laden private message. He then tweeted about it, prominently featuring the fact that this man was the headmaster of a private school in Texas. Predictably, that man is now the former-headmaster of that private school.

But wait, there’s more. A Sullivan & Cromwell partner this week sent a profanity-laden response to press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders after she praised comments by Senator Lindsey Graham concerning Judge Kavanaugh. The S&C partner has now deleted his Twitter account and is likely facing appropriate adversity from his partners.

This is like road-rage, but online. One reason I live in downtown Dallas is because I can walk to my office and avoid driving. I personally feel at risk behind the wheel in part due to the epidemic of distracted drivers, and in part because of the anger displayed on the open road. Similarly, once logged-in to Twitter, people apparently lose their inhibitions and spew online what they would probably never say in front of their parents, children or business colleagues. My office is currently handling five different matters for clients (that I cannot discuss in this forum) that involve issues associated with online hate speech.

To my friends, family and colleagues who may read this blog, I emphasize the importance of being professional in what you write online and in private messages, especially on social media. I was told some 30+ years ago that all of my correspondence should be written with the assumption that it may appear in the New York Times and could be read by my parents. That was good advice then, and it is good advice now. It is OK to express your opinions online as long as you do so in a manner that is logical and respectful. Failure to follow this simple advice can and will have adverse consequences, both now and forever.

Let me repeat that.

It is OK to express your opinions online; just do so in a manner that is logical and respectful. Failure to follow this simple advice can and will have adverse consequences, both now and forever.

The post Hate Speech, The Sequel appeared first on Kennedy Law, P.C..

There are a number of different situations in which you, the employer, may find it necessary to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with your employees. You want to develop trust with your employees, but you also want to be sure your business information is protected. At Kennedy Law, P.C., our NDA lawyers take great pride in our NDA services and how they protect our client’s intellectual property.

Why You Should Sign an NDA with Your Company’s Employees

Here are five reasons we believe it’s important to have your employees sign an NDA.

NDA’s Show Employees What Needs to be Kept Confidential

It is important for you to present a NDA document to your employees as soon as possible. You will undoubtedly be hiring the best of the best, but those employees will take your company information with them whenever they leave. Asking them to sign an NDA will make it clear what information must stay with the company.

Intellectual Property Ownership Rights

In most circumstances, any piece of work created by someone is theirs legally. However, US law states that employees who creates or develops a product (whether tangible or intangible) for their employer must grant ownership to the company. An NDA makes it clear that ownership of the work produced is transferred to you.

There is slight variation in intellectual property ownership throughout the country, so it’s important to clarify how your company will handle it. Providing an NDA for your employees lets them know whether or not their work is owned by the company. You can also create a “Property Rights Agreement” for your employees that further clarifies intellectual ownership.

Helps Manage Usage Permissions

You’ll most likely have to grant usage permissions to those inside and outside of your company, especially if your business produces intangible goods such as media or software. Inevitably, employees will have to use the property at some point. Having an employee NDA document in place allows your employees to use intellectual property when necessary without fear of legal repercussions.

Assists with Business Partnerships

As you business grows and achieves greater levels of success, you may find people drawn to partner with you. While this is often a good decision, the terms of intellectual property ownership can often remain unclear. Asking your new business partners to sign an NDA clarifies any confusion and prevents any disagreement over ownership down the road.

Psychological Effect on Your Employees

Most likely, your employees won’t have any plans to steal your company’s intellectual property. But putting an NDA in place often acts as a psychological restraint. If an employee knows there could legal ramifications for trying to claim ownership or share restricted intellectual property, they will have less incentive to do so.

NDA’s Give Clear Expectations

As a business owner, you know what pieces of intellectual property are your’s by default, but it may not be as clear to your employees. In order to avoid misinterpretation and provide clear expectations for your employees, it’s imperative that you have them sign an NDA.

Are you looking for a qualified attorney to assist you in NDA documentation for your business? Look no further than Kennedy Law, P.C. Our Dallas team of NDA lawyers are willing and able to help you complete the process. Get started with us today.

The post Should I Sign an NDA with My Employees? appeared first on Kennedy Law, PC.

Plant patents, utility patents and design patents are among the three common types of patents. Having a patent will allow you to protect any new discoveries and inventions that you may create. With each patent comes its very own requirements for admissibility. A single patent extends protection to inventions and related discoveries made.

Though each patent has its own requirements, a single invention or discovery can have multiple patents to protect its authenticity. There is a need to have two patents when seeking to protect a newly invented object’s design and functional features. This would be a design patent and a utility patent. Patent lawyers are available to help you find to patent right for you.

The Plant Patent

Plant patents are necessary to be acquired when seeking to protect newly discovered plants with their own distinctive traits. To successfully acquire a plant patent, the plant can not be a tuber propagated plant. Finding the plant in an uncultivated state will render the plant ineligible for a plant patent. Asexual reproduction must be a characteristic of the plant. Asexual reproduction shows that you can produce the plant yourself by cutting it.

The Utility Patent

The utility patent protects machines, useful manufactures that are new, matter and its composition and processes. The definition of a machine is summed up as things commonly known to be machines. Computers are an example of a machine. Methods and acts of doing are known as processes. New chemical compounds and compositions that may include multiple components are compositions of matter.

The Design Patent

Design patents are necessary when seeking protection for an object’s shape and configuration. It is a requirement that the object not be able to be separated from its design. Design patents only extend protection for the objects appearance. Only utility patents can offer protection for the onboard functions of the said object. A separate patent application is necessary.

Patent Protection and How to Obtain One with Patent Lawyers

Applications are required to get any type of patent. Applications must be filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Individuals interested in acquiring a patent have access to both provisional and non-provisional patents. A Dallas patent attorney can aid you in choosing the right application for your needs. When needing more time to understand the details of an invention or discovery, provisional patent applications are ideal for this situation. While you are taking the time to understand your invention, it will be protected under this application throughout the process of working out all the details. During this time no one else will be able to patent the same object.

When you are ready to begin the process to officially obtain your patent, the non-provisional patent application is where you will need to start.  Stephen Kennedy can help you through this process. This process will determine if the invention meets the standards to receive a patent. Once you have received your patent, patent infringement attorneys are available to help prevent other individuals from receiving commission off your invention without your permission.

The post What are the Different Types of Patents for Small Businesses? appeared first on Kennedy Law, PC.

When a debtor files a chapter 11 bankruptcy, the debtor--and other parties in litigation with the debtor--obtain a broad right to remove cases from the state court to the bankruptcy court.  The bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, allows any party to remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action, so long as bankruptcy jurisdiction exists.  By removing cases from state court forums, the estate often gains the opportunity to present cases in a single forum to a single judge.  

Two exceptions exist to this broad removal power. A proceeding before US Tax Court or a civil action by a governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit's police or regulatory power cannot be removed.  

Despite the breadth of section 1452, sometimes other removal statutes may be used.  For instance, perhaps a debtor will want to remove a case to federal court under section 1441, the general removal statute, which allows removal based upon diversity of citizenship, the presence of a federal question, and certain multiparty disputes.  Can a debtor remove a case under section 1441 that would be prohibited from removal under section 1452?  

The Southern District of Texas, finding this question was one of first impression in its court, answered with a yes:  Debtors can remove cases under any applicable bankruptcy removal statute.

In In re Briseno, 17-70073, 2017 WL 1403143 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2017), the State of Texas filed a deceptive trade practice cause of action (a "DTPA lawsuit") against Adelina Briseno, claiming that she was deceiving citizens of Texas by taking funds paid for home construction without disclosing her inability to complete construction.  The state sought monetary relief and injunctive relief to stop Briseno from these actions.

Briseno filed bankruptcy under chapter 11 and then removed the DTPA lawsuit to the bankruptcy court under section 1452.  Later, she amended the removal petition to seek removal under section 1441.  The state filed a motion to remand under section 1452 arguing that the DTPA lawsuit sought injunctive relief to enforce the state's police and regulatory powers, and could not be removed.  The Court agreed with the state, but looked at a case from another district, In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prod. Liab. Litig., 522 F.Supp. 2d 557, 561 (S.D. N.Y. 2007), and stated it also had to consider the other grounds for removal under section 1441, which were federal question and diversity of citizenship.

The court found no federal question in the state's request for injunctive relief because the state was not bringing the suit for its own financial interest or to challenge validity of any liens.  Those two reasons, among others, could pose a federal question based on core bankruptcy jurisdiction.  28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(K) and (O).  The court also found no diversity of citizenship and remanded the case.

Thus, when removing a case to bankruptcy court, if a challenge is expected under the bankruptcy removal statute, it may help to look for alternative grounds for removal.  For more information regarding the statue, please contact our Dallas bankruptcy attorneys today.