Brevet Capital Responds to Articles Tying its Suit to COVID-19 Privacy Issues
A response to recent articles that appeared on Law.com affiliated websites that address the impact of COVID-19 and worker privacy protections.
April 30, 2020 at 01:00 PM
3 minute read
Letter to the Editor:
Certain recent articles that appeared on Law.com and its affiliated websites address the impact of COVID-19 and worker privacy protections. These are timely, important topics, particularly for investment management firms, such as Brevet Capital Management ("Brevet"), which I am proud to represent. As an SEC-registered and regulated investment advisory firm, Brevet takes these matters seriously and has strong policies and procedures in place that govern the rights of the firm and its employees as they relate to company-owned computers and technology. Brevet does so to comply with its obligations and to protect its investors.
The articles, which contain passages that are nearly identical in their content, intent, or structure, are as follows: (1) "Adopting working privacy protections on company devices," by Karen Hertz, at https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2020/04/14/make-something-good-out-of-covid-19-adopt-worker-privacy-protections-on-company-devices-414-176070/?slreturn=20200316225715; (2) "Make Something Good Out Of COVID-19: Adopt Worker Privacy Protections on Company Devices," by Karen Hertz, at https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2020/04/07/make-something-good-out-of-covid-19-adopt-worker-privacy-protections-on-company-devices; and (3) "Privacy in the Pandemic Age: Balancing Business Need-to-Know vs. Employee Privacy," by Richard Levick, at https://www.law.com/litigationdaily/2020/04/15/privacy-in-the-pandemic-age-balancing-business-need-to-know-vs-employee-privacy. Each article refers to an over three-year old lawsuit involving Paul Iacovacci, a former Brevet partner and employee, and Brevet. We intend to prove that the articles contain gross misstatements, omissions, and distortions. To set the record straight, the facts are as follows, all as pleaded by Brevet in the court cases:
- The computer at issue was not Mr. Iacovacci's "home computer". It was Brevet's computer.
- Brevet did not "steal" data. Brevet's policies gave it the right to access its computer, including hard drives and devices connected to it. Indeed, as Brevet alleges, and we intend to prove, Mr. Iacovacci specifically asked Brevet to access the computer at issue – and, more important, was personally involved in creating or approving the Brevet policy that gave Brevet the right to access its own computers. Between that participation and his knowledge of SEC requirements, Mr. Iacovacci knew he had no expectation of any privacy on Brevet's computer.
- Brevet accuses, and we intend to prove, Mr. Iacovacci of "stealing data," particularly Brevet's confidential and proprietary information which Mr. Iacovacci misappropriated without authorization.
COVID-19 has unarguably altered the work-from-home dynamics for at least the foreseeable future. The pandemic raises important questions for employers and employees alike. Yet the authors' suggestions that the Brevet litigations are at all applicable or can serve as a warning about employer overreach seriously misses the mark.
Very truly yours,
Louis M. Solomon Reed Smith LLP
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250