Thursday, July 30, 2015

Congratulations to Texas Board of Legal Specialization (TBLS) on celebrating their 40th Anniversary

On June 19th TBLS celebrated its 40th anniversary at the Henry B. Gonzalez convention center in downtown San Antonio.  At the celebration 35 Texas Board Certified Criminal Law attorneys were recognized for 40 years of Board Certification.  Thirteen attorneys were present to accept a plaque in recognition from TBLS for their special 40 year Board Certification achievement. 
TBLS Executive Director Gary McNeil recognized the 40-year Board Certified Criminal Law attorneys and lauded them as trailblazers who have paved the way for thousands of attorneys who have since become board certified. 
Congratulations again to the attorneys and TBLS on 40 years!

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Exploring the Contours of “Threatened Disclosure” Under Texas’ Uniform Trade Secrets Act

In a commercial market increasingly connected through the Internet, the importance of trade secret protection for businesses is growing exponentially. A single key employee can wreak havoc if he misappropriates trade secrets and then uses that information or discloses it to compete against his former employer. Traditionally, employers have been able to secure injunctions in Texas courts against former employees’ actual use or disclosure of trade secret information based on evidence of those employees’ intentions. And while a few Texas courts have gone so far as to issue injunctions where it was merely probable a defendant would use or disclosure trade secrets, none have expressly or formally adopted the doctrine is known as ‘inevitable’ disclosure. The Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) may have changed that effective September 1, 2013, wherein the state legislature added a new tool to employers’ arsenal by expressly authorizing injunctive relief for “threatened misappropriation.” When combined with the Texas Supreme Court’s trend toward favoring enforcement of non-competes, Texas has, at least temporarily, tilted pro-business in the never-ending tug-of-war between employer proprietary concerns and employee mobility interests. What is less clear is how this augurs for the future.

Although the concept of threatened misappropriation has been a part of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act since its inception in 1979, the flavor known as “inevitable disclosure” did not gain widespread currency until PepsiCo Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995). Traditional threatened misappropriation cases issued injunctive relief based on evidence of probability under the circumstances that the former employee would use the trade secret information in his new job. The inevitable disclosure doctrine dispenses with an analysis of the circumstantial evidence surrounding the particular former employee’s subjective likely future intent, and instead entertains the objective question of whether someone in the former employee’s situation would inevitably use the former employer’s proprietary information.  Some state courts have adopted “inevitable disclosure” as the standard for measuring “threatened disclosure” under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Others have rejected it, opting for an approach that balances the competing interests of employee mobility against the need to protect trade secrets.

The inevitable disclosure doctrine has a checkered past in Texas jurisprudence. Although no Texas court has formally recognized the doctrine under a common law theory, several have fashioned analogous remedies using similar analysis. But with TUTSA, the days of non-recognition have changed. What is unknown is what form “threatened disclosure” may take in Texas jurisprudence. Will it be of the “inevitable disclosure” variety espoused by Redmond, or a more conservative flavor adopted by other jurisdictions? Prior Texas cases provide few clues.

Three common threads run through the Texas cases that approximated the inevitable disclosure doctrine even before TUTSA: (1) possession of trade secret information, (2) the employee is in a position to use the trade secret information, and (3) that the trade secrets “probably would” be disclosed in the absence of injunctive relief. For example, in Rugen v. Interactive Bus. Sys., Inc., 864 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no writ), the court of appeals upheld a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendant from calling on, soliciting, or transacting business with customers and consultants of her former employer, and also from using confidential information and trade secrets she acquired while employed by her former employer. Id. at 550. Despite evidence in the record that the defendant had not actually used or disclosed the trade secrets, the court nonetheless affirmed the injunction, stating, “Rugen is in possession of IBS's confidential information and is in a position to use it. Under these circumstances, it is probable that Rugen will use the information for her benefit and to the detriment of IBS.” Id. at 552. Thus, each of the above threads, (1) possession of the information, (2) position to use the information, and (3) probability of disclosure, are present in the Rugen holding.

Other decisions tend to support the Rugen court’s reasoning. In Williams v. Compressor Eng'g Corp., 704 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. App–Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court of appeals affirmed an injunction based on a jury finding that trade secrets “probably would” be disclosed. Id. at 470-472. That court went on to note that proof that trade secrets “will be used” by a former employee to compete supports injunctive relief. Id. The court of appeals in Weed Eater, Inc. v. Dowling, 562 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston[1st Dist.] 1978, ref’d n.r.e.), upheld an injunction prohibiting a former employee from working for a competitor. The Weed Eater court noted that injunctive relief was the only viable remedy where even in the best of good faith, the former employee could hardly prevent his knowledge of his former employer’s confidential methods from showing up in his work. And finally, in Fox v. Tropical Warehouses, Inc., 121 S.W.3d 853, 860 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2003, no pet.), the court of appeals held that a plaintiff was not required to prove that a defendant is actually using the information, but only needed to prove that the defendant was in possession of the information and was in a position to use it.

It is unclear, however, whether the three factors enumerated above are more or less restrictive than the inevitable disclosure doctrine enunciated in Redmond. In its purest formulation in Redmond, “inevitable disclosure” means that a plaintiff may prove a claim of trade secret misappropriation by demonstrating that the defendant’s new employment will inevitably lead him to rely on the plaintiff’s trade secrets. Behind the Seventh Circuit’s holding stands a well-reasoned opinion: Teradyne Inc. v. Clear Communication Corp., 707 F. Supp. 353 (N.D. Ill. 1989). As in Redmond, the court in Teradyne analyzed inevitable disclosure in light of the Illinois Uniform Trade Secret Act, holding that “threatened misappropriation can be enjoined under Illinois law” where there is a “high degree of probability of inevitable and immediate ... use of ... trade secrets.” Id. None of the Texas cases cited above, however, discuss the degree of probability that information will be disclosed necessary to support injunctive relief for threatened misappropriation. This appears to be an unanswered question in Texas.

Not all courts have lauded the inevitable disclosure doctrine. The California appellate court for the Fourth Appellate District rejected the doctrine in Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277 (Cal. App. 2002). Although the court acknowledged that the majority of jurisdictions which had considered the inevitable disclosure doctrine had accepted it in some form, the California court joined a small but growing number of jurisdictions rejecting the doctrine. In doing so, the court explained, “Decisions rejecting the inevitable disclosure doctrine correctly balance competing public policies of employee mobility and protection of trade secrets.” The California court observed that the inevitable disclosure doctrine created a de facto covenant not to compete that ran counter to California’s established public policy favoring employee mobility. The court also criticized the doctrine because it rewrote employment agreements after-the-fact, without the employee’s consent, based on inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

As previously stated, Texas courts have been reluctant to adopt a common-law variant of the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Two factors now militate against that trend, however. First, of course, is TUTSA. Texas’ Uniform Trade Secrets Act closely resembles Illinois Act. For example, both states that include a “list of actual or potential customers or suppliers” in the definition of a trade secret; that particular addition is absent from the Uniform Act and most other states’ adoption of the Uniform Act. The Redmond case has its origins in the Illinois Act. The second factor is the Texas Supreme Court’s recently announced public policy shift in Exxon Corp. v. Drennen, --- S.W.3d ---, 57 Tex. Sup. J. 1346 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2014), a non-compete case. There the Texas Supreme Court noted that with Texas hosting many of the world’s largest corporations, “public policy has shifted from a patriarchal one in which we valued uniform treatment of Texas employees from one employer to the next above all else, to one in which we also value the ability of a company to maintain uniformity in its employment contracts across all employees, whether the individual employees reside in Texas or New York.” Thus, the Texas Supreme Court effectively jettisoned its role as the protector of employee mobility in favor of a policy that avoids “’disruptions of orderly employer-employee relations’ within large multistate companies and avoids disruption to ‘competition in the marketplace.’” This public policy shift is quietly abetted by TUTSA, which provides that the Act overrides conflicting law, which could include the Texas Covenant Not to Compete Act’s stringent requirements to establish an enforceable non-compete agreement. Under TUTSA’s provisions, Texas courts may find the justification needed to impose de facto non-competes in the form of injunctive relief for threatened misappropriation. Thus, while Texas courts have previously shied away from adopting the inevitable disclosure doctrine, those days are likely numbered in the pro-business environment prevalent at Texas’ highest legislative and jurisprudential levels.

How Texas courts interpret “threatened disclosure” under TUTSA remains to be seen. Texas courts will have to balance the public policy behind the Uniform Trade Secrets Act against that behind the Covenants Not to Compete Act. One way of doing so would be to require a high degree of probability of inevitable disclosure to trigger relief for threatened disclosure. That is the standard for “inevitable disclosure,” however, and courts rejecting the doctrine argue it runs the risk of creating de facto non-competes in employment relationships. Furthermore, Texas courts are reluctant to depart from existing precedent. Existing precedent suggests that proof of a probability of disclosure is all that is necessary to support injunctive relief. Doesn’t that create an even greater risk of turning TUTSA into a tool for forging de facto non-competes in the employment relationship? None of this bodes well for a balanced approach that weighs employee mobility against the protection of trade secrets. Thus, Texas courts may well trend away from such a balanced approach when interpreting TUTSA’s threatened disclosure provision. How far away they will trend, and whether the Covenant Not to Compete Act’s public policy goals militate against that trend, remain to be seen. Until a Texas court delivers a definitive decision, Texas lawyers will be navigating uncertain waters, and employer attempts to enjoin former employees from unfairly competing may be very difficult to predict.

To learn more about how the Vethan Law Firm P.C. (VLF) may help you, visit our website at or call our main office at (713) 526-2222

Monday, May 18, 2015

Copyrights, Trade Secrets & Protecting your IT Space

You are a business owner, you have vested time and energy into your R&D sector and you serendipitously discover that your team of engineers have developed what they think will be the next Linkedin.  What do you do to protect this new software technology and maintain a competitive edge against potential market infringers?

Software protection is an evolving area of law, namely because the market has changed so drastically in the past thirty years.  Software starts with a computer programmer transforming an idea into an algorithm and then turning this algorithm into a functional program.  In the prehistoric days of computing, these algorithms were incorporated into machine code, commonly referred to as object code, nonsensical to the human eye.  This early software was tied to hardware and was unable to exist independently so the need for software protection was unnecessary… think IBM. 

However, sometime in the 1970’s software and hardware were uncoupled and each developed independently of the other.  With the advent of the personal computer less than ten years later, the demand for portable and compact software grew exponentially where programs could be loaded from a floppy disk. Remember those? 

After years of evolution, the computer programs began to walk and talk and higher order programming languages, called source code, developed.   Source code provided programmers an easier way read and write software but did not replace object code.  Source code must still be translated by a compiler into object code for a computer to run the program. So now there are three components of software: algorithms, source code and object code to protect.   


The computer age emerged way too rapidly for the law to adapt and soon important battles between Word and Word Perfect, Internet Explorer and Netscape, Microsoft and Apple were waged, carving out exceptions and extensions to current IP protections to encompass the computer generation. 

Today, computer programs are very unique creatures and often demand all three areas of intellectual property, patent, copyright and trade secret, working in unison to best protect the owner from future imitators and infringers. Trade secrets were the initial method used to protect software and are still commonly used, but have the adverse effect of locking programmers down.  While copyright protection is the most common and utilized way to protect software, the functional implications of the software are patentable subject matter as well.  So what do you do when you need to protect your software?  The best option is to start with registering the code for a copyright.  If there are unique functional components in the code, the application may be protected by applying for a patent as well.  However, registering a copyright is much easier and a good place to begin the process as it provides protection for all three components of software. 

The traditional quid pro quo of copyright of publication for protection does not apply to software.  While the latest Erik Larson thriller obtains protection after registering and presenting a best and complete version of his work to be publically available at the Library of Congress, publishing the complete version of source code would be against the author’s intent.   

The method for applying for a protecting computer programs starts with the programmer to format a complete version of the best edition of a “closed source model” and then submit a limited disclosure to the Library of Congress.  The limited disclosure requires “identifying portions” of the source code be submitted, which is usually the first and last twenty-five pages.  According to the Code of Federal Regulations[1], the author or programmer may block out work that contains trade secret information within the submitted pages so long as the blocked out portions be proportionally less than the disclosed portions and reveals an appreciable amount of source code.  These terms “proportionally” and “appreciable” were intentionally written to include variations on what is considered an “identifiable portion.” Therefore, the source code must be carefully reviewed, to ensure sufficient disclosure to reap full copyright protection without disclosing so much as to compromise secret components.  In order to best protect your software, you will need to consult with an attorney familiar with these limited disclosure requirements.


[1] 37 C.F.R. 202.20

Friday, May 8, 2015

A Few Start-up Mistakes: Five of the Biggest Whammies to Address and to Avoid

Business owners are successful by implementing their ideas through hard work, while finding ways to save money. This is how the smart, the diligent and the prudent make money and build enduring wealth. However, when a starting business feels undercapitalized and attempts to be penny wise, unexpected costs can destroy everything that has been built, and invested. 

A business owner must put basic legal planning into his or her business plan, and have this planning fit the goals and needs of the business.  Too many businesses are crippled, or fail, by not thinking through their relationships and operations in terms of the legal structures that will govern them.  No matter where a business is, or what it does, there are very large risks that it can avoid or significantly reduce at very low expenditure of time and money. 

In two decades of representing businesses, we have seen hundreds of the same mistakes. Too many strong businesses and their leaders seek our help when it is too late, and there is an expensive lawsuit that compromises the resources of a successful business.  Here are just a few of the biggest mistakes for a business to consider:

Mistake Number 1:  Thinking the Honeymoon will Last Forever

Your partners are your friends, your family members, or other people whom you trust, respect, or even love. Nothing will ever come between you.  No.  Eventually you will disagree, and your disagreement will probably involve money or operations.  Usually this happens when a business has crossed its first hurdles and has become stable and successful.  Other times people with longstanding relationships have fallings out. Work (and hope) for the best, but how do you prepare for the worst?  Start by avoiding mistake number two.

Mistake Number 2:  Expecting Your Business to Fit Any Mold or Not Incorporating Your Business

Articles of incorporation, certificates of formation…just a form and a filing fee?  No.  It is the power structure of your business’ life. There are all types of business structures that can be used protect the most knowledgeable, active, or financially at-risk, investor or simply the investor who is most prepared for the worst.  What is your position?  What are the positions of your colleagues and teammates? How do you establish the rules and expectations from the beginning and provide a means to manage the problems that will arise?  Whether you should have protection in place to keep the passive investor passive – or to protect that investors’ right to be active – the business owner must think through the power structure of the business.

At a more basic level, some business owners are slow to incorporate or never incorporate.  Your corporate entity is a separate person under the law.  This legal fiction allows you and other investors to take risks and to grow.  It protects you from liability, and from losing your personal property in litigation – property that has nothing to do with your business, except that it is yours. Most business owners know that they should incorporate. A surprising number do not incorporate until after they have started their business, and a few face the perils of never incorporating at all.

Mistake Number 3:  Not Protecting Your Rights with Key Vendors and Suppliers

You can build and maintain the best relationships in every vertical.  You can negotiate anything.  Get it in writing.  Get an expert to review or draft your contracts to make sure that the words you choose have the effect that you think they have. Consider all of your procedures in this contracting process, in terms of all parties’ expectations and risks, just as you would value and consider customer service and loyalty. You will have a better deal, with the relationship underlying the deal protected, while knowing that you are protected if (or when) there is a serious problem.

Mistake Number 4:  Cutting Corners Defining Employee Expectations and Responsibilities

The cliché is usually true. Your people are your best assets.  How do you protect your business from unnecessary hardships caused by the mistakes, habits or poor choices of your employees?  The short answer is to have an employee handbook crafted to address your expectations in a way that will protect you if (or when) there is a serious dispute with an employee. 

For key employees, whom you may choose not to be at-will employees, consider all aspects of the employee’s roles and responsibilities in the employment contract. The pre-printed contracts widely available will not protect your specific needs. Get an expert to review or draft your contracts to make sure that it fits the contingencies you consider (or have not considered).

For all employees, define their roles and responsibilities in writing. This can help to protect you from claims that you have underpaid employees under the federal employment law. Discuss these roles and responsibilities with an expert to ensure that you have minimized liability against expensive wage and hour lawsuits that can bankrupt a company.

Do not call employees independent contractors unless they are truly independent. Otherwise, the IRS, the Department of Labor, and other powerful agencies will have an added tool to apply against your business through rules and regulations that govern or rely upon employer - employee relationships. 

Mistake Number 5: Not Protecting your Trade Secrets and Other Intellectual Property Rights

Your business’ procedures make it efficient and unique.  Every day, the most basic collection of ideas and information provide an edge that allows a business to surpass its competition.  Every employment contract and every employee handbook must protect your business’ manners and means of conducting its business.  Texas law is very complex in protecting these rights, and in recent years has shifted to protect businesses that are prepared to take advantage of it.  Consult an expert.

An amazing number of businesses never protect their trademarks and other important pieces of intellectual property that allow a business to stand out and grow.  Protect your business early by simply following the procedures that protect your name and its likeness.

The Vethan Law Firm, P.C.

At the Vethan Law Firm, P.C. we are focused on businesses.  We work only with businesses and business people to protect their needs.  Most of our clients seek our help early.  Most of our time, however, is spent helping businesses and business owners who did not prepare for avoidable problems, and face litigation.  From our offices in Houston and San Antonio, we help all types businesses from all over the United States and countries across the world save money and grow.

We serve our business clientele by asking the right questions and by aggressively attacking the challenges posed to business owners.

We look forward to meeting with you, and discussing how we can help your business.  Visit our website at to learn more about how we can assist you today.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015


PART 1:  The Mechanic’s Lien
At the construction management meeting, the General Contractor tells everyone that the project is behind schedule, and penalty provisions may apply.  Translation:  you will not get paid on time.
The bane of every person in the contracting business is getting paid.  That simple task – payment for labor and services rendered – requires contractors, subs, and owners to navigate constant and tedious paperwork.  The stress is built into how the process works.  First, the contractor must determine where it is in the scope of work.  Is the work done?  Has the contractor been terminated, or is it merely a delay in payment?  Does the General / Owner have a right to delay payment – as in the case of an unsigned work order, etc.  - or require an outside party to rectify problems with the work rendered by the contractor.  Next, the contractor must determine if there is a legal basis to preserve the right to payment.  If there is a legal basis, is a lien appropriate, and should you file for arbitration?
The first discussion in this series is the Mechanic and Materialman’s Lien – or the M  & M Lien.
Mechanic and Materialman’s Lien- Getting Security for Your Work
Contractors who provide labor and materials to worksites in Texas are entitled to powerful lien positions that provide security for their work. The Texas Constitution and Texas Property Code both provide remedies for a subcontractor not being paid for their work. Because contractors and materialman’s work occurs prior to mortgage deeds of trust, even small debts hold great leverage over owners and general contractors. However, failure to know how to perfect these liens leaves many contractors out in the cold.
 Under Texas law there are three categories of contractors entitled to liens. The first step any contractor needs to take is to determine where they fit in the chain.
Original Contractor - An original contractor, or “General Contractor,” is a person contracting directly with a property owner. This also includes anyone acting as an agent for a property owner (such as an employee or someone acting on behalf of the property owner). Any trade or contractor can be considered an Original Contractor as long as they are directly contracting with the owner of the property.
A subcontractor is a person who furnishes labor or materials to fulfill an obligation to an Original Contractor.
First Tier Subcontractors - There are two tiers of contractors under Texas law. A First Tier subcontractor is a subcontractor that has an agreement with an Original Contractor but not the Property Owner. An electrician hired by the General Contractor is an easy example of this.
Second Tier Subcontractors -A Second Tier subcontractor does not have an agreement directly with either the General Contractor or the Property Owner, such as a material supplier or tradesman hired by a First Tier Subcontractor. An easy example of this is a subcontractor hired by the concrete subcontractor to place the reinforcement for the foundation.
All three categories are entitled to liens under Texas Law, however, the law requires that additional notices be sent by First and Second Tier subcontractors.
Original Contractor – An Original Contractor may file a Mechanic’s and Materialman’s lien without sending any prior notice to the Property Owner. This is because there is a direct contract between the property owner and the Original Contractor. However, once a lien is filed, an Original Contractor must send notice of the filing of the lien within a very small window.
First Tier Subcontractor – A First Tier subcontractor is required to send what is known as the “third month notice” or the “fund trapping” notice before a lien can be perfected. The letter must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to both the Property Owner and the Original Contractor related to unpaid amounts. The letter must be send by the 15th day of the third calendar month “following each month in which labor was performed or material delivered.”
A copy of the invoice or billing statement is considered sufficient under the Property Code, however, it is recommended that the owner be specifically notified of the terms of the Texas Property Code 53.056 which provides if the claim remains unpaid the Property Owner may be personally liable and the property is subject to a lien unless the Property owner withholds payments from the Original Contractor for payment of the claim or the claim is otherwise paid or settled.
The sooner a “funds trapping” notice is received by a property owner, the more the Property Owner will be personally liable if they do not withhold such funds from the Original Contractor.
Second Tier Subcontractor – A Second Tier subcontractor is required to send one additional notice known as the “second month notice” to the Original Contractor no later than the 15th day of the second month “following each month in which the Second Tier subcontractor has supplied labor or materials.” This notice puts the Original Contractor on notice of the Second Tier subcontractor’s claim.
Additionally, the same “third month” and “fund trapping notice” as stated above for First Tier subcontractors must still be sent by the 15th day of the third calendar month to the Original Contractor and Property Owner.
Failure to send any notice as required under Texas law will mean that a subcontractor will lose the ability to perfect a lien and gain security for the work performed.
Once any required notice has been sent as described above, the next step is to perfect a Mechanic’s and Materialman’s Lien. To properly perfect the Lien a claimant must file an Affidavit in the property records of the county where the property is located “not later than the 15th day of the fourth calendar month after: the month in which the original contract was material breach or terminated, or last day of the month in which the original contract is completed, finally settled, or abandoned.”
Once a claimant perfects their lien, a copy of the affidavit must be sent certified or registered mail to the Property Owner and Original Contractor (if applicable) at their last known address no later than five (5) calendar days after the affidavit is filed in the property records. It is generally recommended that notice of the lien be sent on the same day so that the lien is filed.
The above deadlines refer to commercial projects and the deadlines related to residential properties are generally shortened. It is important that if you perform work on a property, either as a general contractor or subcontractor, that you get security for your work. While the steps to perfecting a lien are not difficult, the deadlines are unforgiving.
Do not delay. If you are faced with a property owner or General Contractor who refuses to pay for services rendered, we hope you will speak with a construction lawyer at the Vethan Law Firm, PC to help secure your rights.
To learn more about how the Vethan Law Firm, P.C. can assist you visit us at

Monday, February 23, 2015

Customer Demanded Discounts may be a Litigation Set Up

Whether it is because of your customer's current financial constraints or a claim that your business has delivered a nonconforming product or made a mistake in the item delivered, businesses are facing increasing requests to discount outstanding invoices. This may not be an issue for small items, but for large ticket items, this request directly affects the business’s bottom line. In this predicament, a business should consult with its business lawyer to determine whether a concession is warranted and, if so, how it should be structured.
When structuring any agreements, either upstream or downstream, with vendors or clients, it is imperative to work with your Houston business attorneys to ensure that any concession resolves every dispute between the parties.

Many times, a concession is requested only for financial reasons. At other times, a concession is requested or sought because issues have been raised about the quality or conformity of the product. Many businesses, on a large ticket item, will allow for a reduction in price to keep a customer happy without consulting with their business lawyers. The problem with this quick fix method is that there may have been underlying disputes that led to a request for the concession or discount in the first place.

Without obtaining a full, fair, and final resolution of the dispute, a business may very well wind up paying for the same mistake several times. For example, the business would initially pay because it has allowed for a discount on its invoice. It pays again if the customer decides to initiate a lawsuit over the mistake or non-conformity; specifically in the form of paying attorneys to defend against the claim. Third, if a business is found liable or settles with its customer over the alleged a mistake or nonconformity, the business winds up paying, in cash or credit, for its mistake or nonconformity. Fourth, if the claim is brought as a breach of contract or a Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) claim, the business may also be forced to pay its customer’s attorney fees and costs, and may be subject to a trebling of damages under the DTPA.

A Houston business lawyer, such as those in the Vethan Law Firm, PC's Business Litigation Group, will be able to advise businesses about  claims for concession and explore the potential downside of such claims. In any event, if a business decides to settle out a dispute early, a business lawyer should be structuring a resolution that protects the business against further liability.

It's an old but true adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When faced with a request from your customer for a discount due to a mistake or nonconformity in a deliverable, we hope you speak with a business lawyer, such as those in the Vethan Law Firm, PC's business litigation group in Houston.

To learn more about our law firm, visit

Friday, December 19, 2014

Gone to Texas

During the first half of the nineteenth century, “Gone to Texas” was a popular phrase used by Americans immigrating to Texas for economic opportunity and hope to make a fortune.  As the Americans came west, en masse, they brought money to invest, and built wealth that circulated to the furthest Texas frontiers.

During the first half of the twenty first century, Texas remains a place for economic opportunity and hope to make a fortune. Today, Texas is a place where the rule of law allows anyone to manifest their greatest potential and fulfill their dreams. Texas attracts business by maintaining predictable regulation, an expanding consumer base, low tax rates, and a legal system that allows the mitigation of legal risks. Anybody from anywhere can come to Texas and seek their fortune.

Texas has the highest volume and concentration of new business investment in the United States, and maintains a rate of economic growth of over twice the national average.  En masse, Americans are coming from California and every other U.S. state to enjoy the business-friendly environment to build businesses and new ideas, to move up in their careers, or simply to get a job or to get out of debt. It is not just Americans flooding Texas with wealth.  Texas has more immigrants from Asia and Latin America starting businesses than any other state.  Texas has more individuals receiving investors’ visas than any other state.

Mexico is no exception. Texas has a long history of being attractive to Mexican investors due to the overlap of physical infrastructure with Mexico and established cultural ties among hundreds of thousands of families and businesses.  Today, recent legal and tax reforms in Mexico are leaving huge amounts of money uninvested in the Mexican economy.  As the regulations to implement reforms are slowly established, Mexican corporations and business owners are establishing growth strategies.  Much of the money has gone to Texas, and is generating new wealth.

Despite the welcoming business environment of the State of Texas, there are pitfalls, and very expensive costs for unwary businesses without corporate counsel. Fortunately, a business can avoid substantial risks and costs, and effectively compete with proper planning catered to its operations, relationships and goals. However, commercial and corporate governance is a fairly specialized area, and new businesses must select and work with business attorneys who are experienced in commercial, employment and intellectual property law matters.

At the Vethan Law Firm, we are business lawyers who serve entrepreneurs and growing businesses from dozens of states of the United States and foreign countries, from Florida to California, from Pakistan to Peru, and from across Mexico.  The Vethan Law Firm, P.C., is an AV Preeminent rated law firm, is within the top two percent (2%) of law firms in the United States, experienced in the boardroom and the courtroom, and with regulatory agencies. 

With officers in Houston and San Antonio, and licenses in Texas, California and North Dakota, the Vethan Law firm serves Texas’ high technology sector and service industries, businesses serving the Eagleford Shale, and the historic business centers in the energy industry.  In any industry, a business’ or entrepreneur’s first steps into Texas should be carefully measured, lest the phrase “Gone to Texas” lose its popularity.  At the Vethan Law Firm we welcome the opportunity to serve businesses as they expand or relocate to Texas.  It is our pride and our passion.

¡Bienvenidos a todos! ¡Bienvenidos a Texas! Welcome to everyone! Welcome to Texas!
And don't forget to visit us at