Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—11th Cir.: Former Alpine Security CEO’s liability for trade secret misappropriation affirmed on appeal, (May 8, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The former CEO misappropriated confidential client and revenue information to assist a competing broker-dealer and received substantial profits from former clients who transferred their business after his departure.

The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a jury verdict finding former Alpine Securities Corporation chief executive Christopher Frankel liable for breach of nondisclosure agreements and trade secret misappropriation under federal and Florida law, and upheld a $932,000 unjust enrichment award because sufficient evidence showed that Frankel used Alpine’s confidential client and revenue information to benefit himself at a competing broker-dealer. The appellate court also upheld the district court’s exclusion of a defense witness and its decision permitting the plaintiffs to argue unjust enrichment damages at trial. At the same time, the court affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and the inadequacy of legal remedies, particularly because they delayed seeking injunctive relief despite knowing about the alleged misconduct for years (Hurry Family Revocable Trust v. Frankel, No. 23-10365 (11th Cir. May 6, 2026), unpublished).

Plaintiffs-appellees and cross-appellants Alpine Securities Corporation and Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corporation operated in the over-the-counter securities business and were previously indirectly controlled by the Hurry Family Revocable Trust. Defendant-appellant and cross-appellee Christopher Frankel served as Alpine’s CEO from 2015 until July 2018 and later worked briefly as a consultant. During his tenure, Frankel signed nondisclosure agreements requiring him to keep Alpine’s confidential information strictly confidential and prohibiting him from using such information for anyone’s benefit other than Alpine’s.

The asserted trade secrets included Alpine’s top-client lists, commission and revenue information, detailed trade blotters showing trading activity, financial statements, draft employment agreements, and other sensitive business records. According to the evidence at trial, Frankel forwarded hundreds of pages of Alpine documents to his personal email account shortly before leaving the company. Among the materials was a list of Alpine’s top 50 client accounts and year-to-date commissions, as well as a “trade blotter” containing detailed information about trades handled by Alpine over a two-day period. The client list identified some of Alpine’s most lucrative customers, including entities owned by Chicago Venture Partners principal John Fife.

After leaving Alpine, Frankel began negotiating to acquire his own broker-dealer and later joined competitor Vision Financial Markets, LLC. Alpine alleged that Frankel used its confidential information to solicit Alpine’s customers and negotiate favorable business opportunities with competitors. On November 21, 2018, Alpine, Scottsdale, and the Hurry Family Revocable Trust filed suit in the Middle District of Florida asserting claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and unjust enrichment. Following contentious discovery disputes, repeated motions to compel, and pandemic-related trial delays, the case proceeded to a jury trial in April 2021. The jury found Frankel liable for breach of the nondisclosure agreements and trade secret misappropriation, awarded $932,000 in unjust enrichment damages, but found that Alpine suffered no direct monetary damages. The district court later denied Frankel’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial and also denied Alpine’s request for a permanent injunction. Frankel appealed the liability and damages rulings, while Alpine cross-appealed the denial of injunctive relief.

Witness exclusion. The Eleventh Circuit first rejected Frankel’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by excluding testimony from John Fife. The appellate court noted that district courts possess broad authority to manage trials and resolve discovery disputes. Citing Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2002), it explained that trial courts must retain substantial discretion to ensure orderly proceedings.

The court found that Frankel waited until the fourth day of trial to attempt to call Fife, despite knowing since at least the second day of trial that Alpine intended to rely heavily on evidence relating to Fife-owned entities. The Eleventh Circuit also noted that Fife did not appear on Frankel’s “real” witness list exchanged shortly before trial. Although Frankel previously identified Fife in a broader pretrial statement filed before earlier trial continuances, he never clarified that Fife would actually testify and resisted Alpine’s efforts to depose potential witnesses. Relying in part on Cf. Com. Union Ins. Co. v. M/V Bill Andrews, 624 F.2d 643 (5th Cir. 1980), the appellate court held that the district court reasonably excluded the testimony because allowing it at such a late stage would have prejudiced Alpine and disrupted the trial schedule.

Unjust enrichment theory. The appellate court also rejected Frankel’s contention that Alpine improperly ambushed him with an unjust enrichment damages theory. The court observed that Alpine consistently asserted unjust enrichment claims throughout the litigation, including in its complaint, initial disclosures, and repeated discovery requests concerning Frankel’s compensation from Vision. Alpine’s theory remained that Frankel profited from former Alpine clients who moved their accounts to Vision.

The court further upheld the district court’s decision permitting Alpine to use a demonstrative chart during closing arguments summarizing damages calculations derived from Frankel’s own testimony. Although the district court had barred Alpine from presenting previously undisclosed numerical damage computations, it allowed Alpine to discuss testimony concerning commissions and bonuses generated from former Alpine clients. The Eleventh Circuit agreed that the demonstrative merely allowed jurors to “follow the math” based on evidence already admitted at trial rather than introducing a new damages model.

Evidence supporting damages. Turning to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that Alpine presented enough evidence to support the $932,000 unjust enrichment award. The court explained that both the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act permit recovery measured by the value of the trade secret to the defendant. Quoting Univ. Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974), the court noted that unjust enrichment damages focus on the benefits obtained by the wrongdoer and that calculating such damages remains a “very flexible” exercise.

The court pointed to evidence that Frankel assured Chicago Venture Partners that Vision could offer better rates than Alpine and acknowledged that the company would become Vision’s “biggest” client. Testimony established that entities controlled by Fife generated at least $100,000 per month in commissions for Vision and contributed to the Corporate Services Group profit pool from which Frankel received substantial compensation. The court concluded that jurors reasonably could infer both that Frankel benefited from using Alpine’s confidential information and that the amount awarded represented a reasonable approximation of the profits generated through the misappropriation.

Permanent injunction. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the denial of Alpine’s request for a permanent injunction. Applying the four-factor equitable test from eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), the court agreed with the district court that Alpine failed to establish irreparable harm and the inadequacy of legal remedies. Further, the appellate court pointed out Alpine knew of the alleged misappropriation from the outset of the litigation but waited until after the jury verdict to seek permanent injunctive relief. Citing Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2016), the court stated that such delay undermined claims of irreparable harm.

The Case is No. 23-10365.

Judge: Grant, B.

Attorneys: Kristin Ann Norse (Kynes Markman & Felman, PA) for Hurry Family Revocable Trust. Bryan D. Hull (Bush Ross, PA) for Christopher Frankel.

Cases: ContractClaims TortClaims RemediesDamages StateLawClaims EvidenceDiscovery AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews