FTC Expects to Vote on Non-Compete Ban in 2024
In January of 2023, the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, announced a proposed rule to ban non-competes “based on a preliminary finding that non-competes constitute an unfair method of competition and therefore violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.”
The Fact Sheet released by the FTC stated “that noncompete clauses bind about one in five American workers, approximately 30 million people” and that they hurt workers and harm competition.” The Fact Sheet also discussed the impact that the ban could have on wages, stating that “the proposed rule could increase workers’ earnings across industries and job levels by $250 billion to $296 billion per year.”
According to the Fact Sheet, a vote on the rule in expected in 2024 and could possibly result in the following:
“ban employers from entering noncompete clauses with their workers, including independent contractors.”
“require employers to rescind existing noncompete clauses with workers and actively inform their employees that the contracts are no longer in effect.”
Bloomberg recently reported that the FTC “received nearly 27,000 comments on the draft rule” and that the “FTC had spent about $500,000 on the rulemaking effort by late February, according to a letter from the agency sent to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that was obtained by Bloomberg Law under the federal Freedom of Information Act.”
Some states, like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware were among the few to ban non-competes for doctors, stating that they were against public policy and harmed patients’ desire to maintain a relationship with doctors who had been treating them.
An article in RollCall.com recently reported that “because emergency physicians are increasingly employed by staffing firms — some which are owned by private equity firms — non-competes have become widespread in the specialty, said Jonathan Jones, president of American Academy of Emergency Medicine, which represents 8,000 emergency physicians.”
Jones went on to say that “a recent survey of AAEM’s members showed half of its members were in non-competes. Of those who had signed noncompete agreements, most were employed by staffing agencies, especially those owned by private equity firms.”
It is now expected that the FTC will vote on the ban in 2024.
Photo Credits: Photo by Thirdman, Photo by Andrea Piacquadio
Da'Naia Jackson's Course is Being Called a Scam...But is it
Da’Naia Jackson, who is estranged from relationship authority, Derrick Jaxn, is now putting herself out there as an authority of sorts also. She and Jaxn were together for a number of years before their relationship took a tumble amid rumors of infidelity on his part.
His YouTube channel still has over 700k subscribers while Da’Naia appears to be focusing on Instagram where she has 125k followers.
Da’Naia has a series of courses available on the Teachable platform, including one called “1:1 Coaching: Profit from Your Pain.” The course costs $4,997, and some people are calling it a scam…well, for a number of reasons.
But let’s backtrack and get clear on what a scam is.
Generally speaking, a scam is a circumstance where someone uses deception to trick you into engaging in an action for the scammers benefit. In most cases, you are lied to or given information that is misleading in order to have you turn over money or something of value to the scammer.
Credit: https://da-naia-jackson-s-school.teachable.com/p/one-on-one-counseling
So, the question is this: is she being deceptive with what she is advertising. Is she delivering what she says she’s delivering. The thing is…it’s not clear what she’s offering. Therefore, it’s difficult to say she’s being deceptive. It could just be that she needs to be clearer about what she’s offering.
Let’s break this down:
It’s not clear to me what you are receiving. Apparently, it’s coaching, and it looks like it occurs via Zoom.
It’s not clear how long the Zoom coaching is. Is it multiple Zooms? Does it last an hour or more?
Is she available for follow-up communications, and if so, is there an additional cost?
Is there a written contract that shows exactly what you are receiving for $4,997?
Are there any deliverables that will be provided to you; for instance…is there a plan for turning that pain into profit? Will it be written down, summed up, and provided to you with timelines, budgets, and resource lists?
This is the missing information.
Then, there are the questions about expertise and skills. Has she studied what it is she is selling? Of course, experience has value, and she talks at length about the experiences she has been through and how it has helped her. But what is her background and education? Does it relate to what she’s selling? Is her relationship pain and what she has learned from it enough for an almost $5,000 course?
And then there’s the big question: can this help you.
So, here’s what you should think about before hiring someone as a coach, teacher, or whatever. Ask questions. Get it in writing. Take time to review the contract and deliverables, and then determine whether you’re being misled. Have someone you trust review it with you and give you their thoughts. Then make a decision.
If you’re not being misled, then it’s likely this is not a scam. It could just be that your overpaying for a service that might be overrated. But hey…we do that every day.
Now You Have to BOLO for the Fake Client Too
It can be exciting to work with new clients who are starting businesses or former clients who have a great new project that they’re working on. That’s always a good feeling to have.
Unfortunately, that new client sometimes comes with more than legal problems.
On June 9, 2023, I received an email notification that someone had sent me a form submission through my website. Basically, the email was letting me know that someone had filled out my online form to ask about hiring me to provide legal services. Using the form, the prospective client submitted his name, email address, telephone number, and reason for the inquiry.
One of the first things I look for is to see whether the person needs assistance in an area of law that I practice. Sometimes, people will contact me about issues that I don’t handle. Other times, the prospective client that might reside in another state. Well, I’m only licensed in North Carolina. So, for both of those, that’s a no for the client.
It can be exciting to get new clients.
Except when the new client isn’t really a new client.
Then there are the fake clients that I have to be on the lookout for which brings me back to the June 9th email.
Dear Attorney,
I found your contact info in a bar directory online. Does your firm handle business / lease agreements? Please send me a referral if this is not your area of practice.
I will appreciate your response at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Name Redacted
Vice President
I responded back to the prospective client by asking…1) what type of business do you have and 2) where are you located?
While I waited for the client to respond, I checked out a few things:
The person stated that they found me in a bar directory online. Most people who find me online find me through Justia’s online directory, and the email comes directly through Justia. This person didn’t state what the directory was. This wasn’t really a red flag. It’s just part of the vetting process information.
The person’s telephone number was in California. That’s a long way away from where I am. Again, this isn’t necessarily a red flag. It’s something to consider.
The email ended with a signature stating that this person was a Vice President of the company but there was no company listed.
The email that was provided was a gmail account. By now, the flags are starting to add up.
The person responded to my email as follows:
Good day,
Thank you for getting back to me regarding my potential legal representation request. I want you to draft a commercial lease agreement between my company and (Company Name Redacted).
which is located in your state. We are negotiating the terms for a lease agreement for their upcoming contract. They are looking at the possibility of leasing my (information redacted) for a 12 months duration.
We will require your services for the following:
Draft the lease agreement
Review the required documents for the lease
We will handle negotiations. We may need your advice on the legal part if the need arises.
The total value of the transaction will be around $3,400,000 which will be handled by my company. We were hoping to kick this off the second week of Aug 2023, due to the COVID-19 outbreak we are uncertain about the closing date. I will provide you with our previous lease agreements which we have used in the past to make things move as fast as possible.
Send me a retainer agreement based on your hourly rate, I believe you will not exceed 20 hours on the whole project. My week is looking tied, we can schedule to discuss after I have reviewed your retainer agreement, and once we are set to have you start drafting the lease agreement. I look forward to hearing from you and working with you on this project. Let me know if you have any questions.
Lessee Conflict:
(Name of Company Redacted)
(Company Address Redacted)
Regards,
(Name of Vice President)
Vice President
(Name of Real Company Listed Here Redacted)
(Street Address of Real Company Listed Here Redacted)
(City, Town, and Zip Code Listed Here Redacted)
(Telephone Number Listed Here Redacted)
At this point, I now had a lot more information to determine whether this was a red flag, and it was certainly starting to look that way.
First, I contacted the real company. Yes…I called them up on the phone after Googling the name. It turns out that they had received several calls regarding emails like this. This phone conversation confirmed that this was a fake client.
Second, the Vice President’s company was located in Ohio. So, it made no sense for them to be contacting me since I don’t practice law in Ohio.
At this point, I should have just deleted the email, but I didn’t. I sent the fake client a response as follows: “Well (name redacted)...I called Yadkin Well Company. They stated that you are sending emails to attorneys all across the country and that this is a scam.
I never heard back from the “Vice President.”
Stay vigilant when working with people who contact you. It’s different if a prospective client is referred by someone that you know and trust. But in those cases where you don’t know someone who has contacted you online, you should be wary and vet the person before deciding to work with them.
Featured Picture Credit: Photo by Arno Senoner on Unsplash
Couple Sought Over $50k in Lawsuit Against Oceangate CEO Months Before Submersible Disappearance
THE LAWSUIT
In February of 2023, Marc and Sharon Hagle, a couple residing in Orange County, Florida, filed a 9-page lawsuit against Oceangate CEO, Richard Stockton Rush. The lawsuit against Oceangate sought damages in excess of $50,000. It stated that Rush is CEO of Argus Expeditions, Ltd doing business as Oceangate Expenditions.
The Hagels stated that they signed a contract with Oceangate on or about November 28, 2016 to participate in an expedition that would involve taking a submersible dive to the wreck of the RMS Titanc. They further stated that the expedition would take place aboard the Cyclops 2, a submersible, which at that time, was not fully ready for the expedition.
They paid a $20,000 “fully refundable” deposit of $10,000 each and were scheduled to make an additional payment of $40,000. This payment was referred to as the “Milestone Payment.” The final payment of $55,129 was due on February 1, 2018.
Once the Hagles believed that the expedition would not be ready by its anticipated date of they began to have concerns. This was especially the case when the excursion was cancelled on multiple occassions. The June excursion was cancelled because the company had not been able to “conduct the full series of tests and dives needed to certify the Titan to the depth necessary to reach the Titanic.” The excursion was then scheduled for July 2019. However, the “contracted support vessel refused to participate.” So, it was cancelled again. The new expected date was 2020.
By this point, the lawsuit states “they had paid for the full Expedition,” which was a total of $210,258.
The Hagles sued for fraudulent inducement, stating specifically that they were told “if Plaintiffs had any questions or concerns as to the integrity of Cyclops 2 and/or the timing of the Expedition if it were to be delayed, they could request, and would receive, a full refund of all monies paid with no questions asked, and (d) Plaintiffs' Deposits were, and any future payments by Plaintiffs would be, held in a dedicated client escrow account separate from his or OceanGate's funds.”
The lawsuit states that “when the Expedition was delayed for multiple years, Plaintiffs requested a refund in accordance with Rush's representations, but their refund requests were refused. Plaintiffs were also informed that their monies were not maintained in a separate escrow account.”
After it was determined that Rush had died in the failed June 2023 excursion, the Hagles dropped their lawsuit.
THE ESCROW ACCOUNT…A FEW THOUGHTS
According to this Investopedia article How Escrow Protects Parties in Financial Transactions by Caroline Banton, “escrow accounts are managed by the escrow agent. The agent releases the assets or funds only upon the fulfillment of predetermined contractual obligations (or upon receiving appropriate instructions). Money, securities, funds, and other assets can all be held in escrow.”
In such an arrangement, the parties will have a written contract that states, for instance, when the funds can be released, which parties have authority to release the funds, what happens if the parties don’t agree, and what happens if a party dies. In this case regarding the Hagles and rush, it appears that Rush may have stated that the funds would be placed in an escrow account, but that didn’t happen. Therefore, it’s important to remember that it’s not enough to state that the funds are going to be held in an escrow account, the transaction should be set up so that the escrow agent receives the funds, not the other party.
This is an important distinction to remember.
It appears that the funds were given to Rush and not the escrow agent. Had there been a written agreement and the funds been entrusted with an escrow agent, it would have been more likely that the Hagles would have had an easier time having their funds returned, depending on how the escrow agreement was written.