CCBill Sueing Epoch / Patrick Curran

[Lee]

TEMPE, Ariz. - Third-party processor CCBill is suing its chief competitor Paycom and former CCBill vice president of human resources Patrick Curran.

The lawsuit, filed on July 27 in Arizona Superior Court, alleges that Curran accepted a position at Paycom despite being under contract with CCBill.

CCBill further alleges that Paycom was aware of Curran's employment agreement and a confidential disclosure agreement Curran signed with CCBill in 2001.

Paycom contends that Curran's employment agreement is unenforceable.

The suit states, in part, "...Paycom valued relationships Curran had established with certain of plaintiffs' clients and, upon informantion and belief, intended for Curran to utilize client data and information in order to solicit those entities and individuals to engage in business with Paycom and cease doing business with CCBill."

Curran's employment agreement with CCBill states that he may not work for any company that directly competes with CCBill for two years after his employment with the company ends, regardless of how employment is terminated.

CCBill alleges Curran stole their assets and trade secret information, an allegation stemming from a company-provided cell phone which Curran reportedly had transferred from the company's name to his.

CCBill is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, together with a pre-judgment interest rate of 1.5 percent per month, and punitive damages. In addition, the suit seeks to bar Curran from working at Paycom.

Curran did not return request for comment. Paycom executives were unavailable for comment.

CCBill will be issuing a statement shortly.

http://avnonline.com/index.php?Prima...tent_ID=273594

Regards,

Lee

[LiveTwinksCam]

I was wondering when this would happen. Most companies have non-compete clauses, even I have my models sign a non-compete clause. As powerful as he was in the company, I am sure he had to sign one and his new company had to be aware of that. Kind of a common practice in any business, mainly at his level.

Hopefully his new gig doesn't drop him from being scared of legalities and then he is out of a gig completely. He must be really stressed out right now. I wish him the best, he is good people. He helped me out a lot at the Florida convention last year when my husband had too much to drink.

Best of luck Pat! ((hugs)) my friend.

[jIgG]

non-compete?
Shit I thought only TV journalists did this

crazy shit, looks like it's going to get ugly

[IntenseCash.com]

Man this sucks. I support Paycom and CCBill and Patrick. I hope this can be settled because these companies have really never been enemies and I would hate to see that.

Mark

[gaybucks_chip]

Somebody at CCBill doesn't get it.

All this will do is alienate a lot of people. I'm sure the Cadwells are pissed/embittered, but an ugly public lawsuit, particularly with bullshit claims about "proprietary information" in a cell phone(!) is the LAST thing this industry needs, and makes CCBill look like a sore loser. If they were smart, they'd graciously wish Patrick well and just move on; this will end up looking bad not for Patrick or for Epoch, but for CCBill.

Epoch is most likely correct; non-compete agreements that are too restrictive are rarely enforceable, and particularly since Patrick's role with CCBill was VP of HR (hardly a role that would be involved with any unusual proprietary aspects of CCBill's business) it would most likely be hard to defend.

Of course that's my non-lawyer's interpretation. But perhaps if enough people let it be known to CCBill that this is dumb, they'll realize that they'll lose a lot more in PR than they'd ever gain by pursuing this.

[basschick]

i'm generally a BIG fan of ccbill, but this left a bad taste in my mouth. patrick surely had access to all information. IF - and i SERIOUSLY doubt this - he wanted to contact ccbill clients, he didn't need this cell phone. he could have simply copied everything out of it or out of his database at work.

patrick was with ccbill long enough to where we can all see he was a loyal employee for quite a while, not just some greedy person trying to climb up using every means possible. sometimes companies and people part, and after a long and positive relationship perhaps it's better to part on good terms even if the separation wasn't what both parties wanted.

just my two cents...

[Squirt]

The last thing we need in our industry is drama and instability with our processors.

[basschick]

i know a fair amount of people in our industry who signed a non compete. and for me, it's already ugly - and sad

non-compete?
Shit I thought only TV journalists did this

crazy shit, looks like it's going to get ugly

amen to that!!!

The last thing we need in our industry is drama and instability with our processors.

[desslock]

Well this could betoken certain portents regarding the Gay Phoenix Forum, for which we are all in the middle of planning for.....

Steve

[LiveTwinksCam]

I guess me being on a cruise during the phoenix forum trip isn't as bad as I once thought. I was kicking myself in the ass for them being scheduled at the same time, but now it looks like being on the boat may be the better option.

[IntenseCash.com]

Some really good points posted. I agree this will defintely hurt CCBill no matter what happens. Two competitors always working together and one is now suing the other. I talked to someone who was in a similiar situation and the company that sued them lost. I guess these non compete agreements very rarely hold up is what their lawyer said. I don't understand the whole cell phone deal. The old cell number I had for him in his voicemail he said if you are trying to reach CCBill call blah blah blah and if you are trying to reach Patrick call him at blah blah blah. So it did not seem he was using this cell phone. This whole situation sucks. I am sure everything will be fine Patrick and it sounds like Paycom has your back.

Mark

[Lee]

Here is CCBills response to the suits / AVN article:

Tempe, Arizona – August 4, 2006 – Today, AVN Online reported that CCBill is suing Paycom and its former employee, Patrick Curran. The truth is that management at Paycom, CCBill’s largest and most direct competitor, has apparently decided to compete with CCBill through corporate raids and attempts to mine CCBill’s trade secrets, rather than by offering superior products and pricing to the marketplace. CCBill was shocked to learn that two former CCBill employees, Patrick Curran and David Salonic, have departed for Paycom, and in Curran’s case without notice, taking with them knowledge of client lists and other valuable information, which they may be disclosing unlawfully to Paycom. Promptly upon Curran’s exit, Paycom launched litigation, suing CCBill in California. Paycom claims a non-existent legal right to receive CCBill’s high level employees and obtain CCBill’s confidential information with impunity. CCBill is attempting to protect itself from Paycom’s newly aggressive tactics.

CCBill, as do most successful companies today, takes all legal and appropriate steps to protect its business assets including its intellectual property, confidential information, trade secrets and competitive advantages. One of the mechanisms that companies employ to provide that protection is a written agreement with the employees that in essence says that for a period of time after leaving the company the employee agrees not to go to work with a competitor. Another is an agreement to not divulge any Company information to anyone outside the Company. With that stated, in the past 2 weeks, two of CCBill’s senior managers have chosen to violate their signed commitment to the Company and accept employment with Paycom.

CCBill advised Paycom immediately of the existence of the employment agreements which these individuals had signed. Rather than support CCBill’s right to prevent employees from taking Company confidential information to competitors, Paycom chose to race to the courthouse to file suit against CCBill. Thus, CCBill has taken legal action and responded appropriately.

CCBill recognizes that this response is a shift from their normal policy of not responding to rumors and innuendos, but believes it is important for the industry to know that CCBill is here for the long haul, and as always has done the right thing to protect its business and that of its clients.

Regards,

Lee

[gaybucks_chip]

I VERY SERIOUSLY DOUBT there will be any negative repercussions for Gay Phoenix Forum.

Remember that (a) Epoch is sponsoring; and (b) CCBill has a full time person (Sherri) who is coordinating all the details with Phoenix Forum.

If anything, if I were Ron Cadwell, I'd be opening the checkbook to make Gay Phoenix Forum an even bigger event without Patrick's assistace, and making some well-placed calls to ensure that the gay adult community knows that CCBill is and continues to be 100% behind gay adult webmasters. That's making lemonade out of lemons; suing Patrick and Epoch is just sour grapes.

[gaybucks_chip]

Here is CCBills response to the suits / AVN article:,

Lee

Sounds like a pissing contest to me. There's no question that what Epoch did was underhanded, but my guess is they preemtively filed in California after a nasty phone conversation or something... and CCBill filed in retaliation.

I just hope that the industry, and the only two reputable processors in the industry, don't get embroiled in what is a pretty small-potatoes occurrence in the long run.

[Lee]

Sounds like a pissing contest to me. There's no question that what Epoch did was underhanded, but my guess is they preemtively filed in California after a nasty phone conversation or something... and CCBill filed in retaliation.

I just hope that the industry, and the only two reputable processors in the industry, don't get embroiled in what is a pretty small-potatoes occurrence in the long run.

To be honest, as long as CCBill and Patrick both come out of this amicably, i really dont care what happens $0.02

Regards,

Lee