
Organized: The Business Law Breakdown
147 episodes — Page 1 of 3
PTS: Conclusion — Trade Secret Law as Discipline and Infrastructure
PTS 7D: Network Theory of Trade Secret — Why Law Doesn't Always Matter
PTS 7C: Living with Trade Secrets: Governance that Lasts
PTS 7B: Implementing a Trade Secret Protection Plan
PTS 7A: The Six Pillars of Trade Secret Protection — Building a System That Proves Reasonable Efforts
PTS 6C: Damages, Fees, and Litigation Strategy — Valuing Secrets After Misappropriation
PTS 6B: Injunctive Relief — Stopping Misappropriation Before Secrets Leak
PTS 5C: Staged Disclosure — Protecting Trade Secrets in M&A and Venture Capital Due Diligence
PTS 6A: Misappropriation — The Legal Threshold for Trade Secret Enforcement
PTS 5B: Vendors, Supply Chains, and Cybersecurity — Managing Distributed Risk
PTS 5A: Crossing the Boundary — Third-Party NDAs and the Paradox of Necessary Disclosure
PTS 4C: Culture of Secrecy — Training, Enforcement, and the Human Side of Compliance
PTS 4B: The Joiner-Mover-Leaver Protocol
PTS 4A: Contracts That (Reasonably) Protect Secrets — Drafting Enforceable Agreements
PTS 3C: Valuing Trade Secrets — Why Worth Depends on Who Holds It
PTS 3B: Mapping Risk — How to Know What’s Worth Protecting
PTS 3A: Risk, Uncertainty, and the Trade Secret Paradox
PTS 2B: Reasonable Efforts — How Companies Win or Lose Trade Secret Protection
PTS 2A: What Makes a Secret a Trade Secret — Information and Economic Value
PTS 1C: The UTSA, the DTSA, and the Global Framework of Trade Secret Law
PTS 1B: Trade Secrets and Patents — Choosing the Right Kind of Protection
PTS 1A: The Paradox of Sharing Secrets — Foundations of Trade Secret Law
PTS: How to Protect Trade Secrets – Overview of this Law Course
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 11: The Financially Fluent Lawyer
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 10: Financial Failure and Bankruptcy Law
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 9: Accounting for Securities Regulation
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 8: Deal Terms Decoded
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 7: Boardroom Numeracy
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 6: Integrated Financial Statement Analysis
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 5: The Cash Flow Statement
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 4: The Income Statement
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 3: The Balance Sheet
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 2: Cutting Through Jargon Like a Lightsaber
Financial Literacy for Lawyers – Episode 1: Why Lawyers Must Be "Numerate"
Piercing the Corporate Veil – Episode 8: Preventing Veil Piercing
Piercing the Corporate Veil – Episode 7: Modern Veil Piercing Applications
Piercing the Corporate Veil – Episode 6: Parent-Subsidiary Piercing
Piercing the Corporate Veil – Episode 5: Horizontal Veil Piercing
Piercing the Corporate Veil – Episode 4: Reverse Veil Piercing
Piercing the Corporate Veil – Episode 3: Not-So Limited Liability Companies
Piercing the Corporate Veil – Episode 2: PCV Factors & Tests
Piercing the Corporate Veil – Episode 1: The Limits of Limited Liability
Shareholder Litigation – Episode 9: Wrapping Up Shareholder Litigation
Shareholder Litigation – Episode 8: The Future of Shareholder Litigation
Shareholder Litigation – Episode 7: Trial, Settlement, and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Shareholder Litigation – Episode 6: Special Litigation Committees
Shareholder Litigation – Episode 5: Pre-Trial Motions

S9 Ep 4Shareholder Litigation – Episode 4: Discovering the Evidence
In this fourth episode of the shareholder litigation series on Organized: The Business Law Breakdown, Professor Seth C. Oranburg explores the discovery phase, where evidence is gathered to substantiate claims in direct and derivative actions. Learn how discovery promotes transparency under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, focusing on relevance and proportionality, while addressing agency costs by uncovering managerial misconduct. For direct suits, discovery targets proof of personal harms like material misstatements; for derivative claims, pre-suit inspections under DGCL Section 220 enable access to books and records to establish demand futility, with recent amendments like Senate Bill 21 balancing access against abuse. The episode examines technology's impact—AI for efficient document review, blockchain for data validation—and challenges such as high costs, privileges, motions to compel, and protective orders for trade secrets. Through hypotheticals and practical tips, Professor Oranburg illustrates how discovery can drive settlements or strengthen trials. Tailored for law students, business owners, and corporate professionals, this installment advances the civil procedure playbook with checklists for effective evidence gathering.

S1 Ep 36Meyer v. Uber Techologies, Inc. - A Case About Modern Contract Formation
In this episode, I read aloud Judge Chin’s majority opinion in Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017), a foundational online-assent case about whether Uber’s mobile “sign-in-wrap” created a binding arbitration agreement. The Second Circuit vacates a district-court denial of arbitration and remands on waiver, holding that the app’s registration screen gave “reasonably conspicuous” notice and that tapping “Register” unambiguously manifested assent to the linked Terms of Service. Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017). Why this case matters It sets a widely cited standard for mobile contract formation: the “reasonably prudent smartphone user,” notice via hyperlink, and spatial/temporal coupling of terms with the act of registration. It anchors the taxonomy of online agreements (clickwrap, browsewrap, scrollwrap, sign-in-wrap) in Second Circuit doctrine and integrates Specht and Nicosia. See Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002); Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016). It’s also a clean vehicle to teach FAA vs. state contract law: arbitration is enforced only if a contract exists under state law (here, California), reviewed de novo on undisputed facts. For contrast, pair it with Sgouros v. TransUnion, 817 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2016) (design misled users) and Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc., 893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2018) (Uber lost on a different screen design). What to listen for (learning targets) Procedural posture and standards of review. Identify where the case sits (appeal from denial of motions to compel arbitration), what is reviewed de novo, and what is reviewed for clear error. Be ready to explain why de novo applies here. Governing law pathway. Track the move from the FAA policy favoring arbitration to the threshold state-law contract question: Was there a contract at all? Note the court’s reliance on Specht for assent principles. Interface facts that mattered. Listen for the precise design features the court credits: uncluttered screen; dark text on white; blue, underlined hyperlinked “TERMS OF SERVICE & PRIVACY POLICY”; placement directly below “Register”; no scrolling needed. Ask yourself which of these are necessary vs. merely persuasive. “Reasonably prudent smartphone user.” Catch how the court uses background facts about smartphone adoption and common web conventions to support constructive notice. Could similar reasoning cut the other way if conventions evolve? Assent without an “I agree” button. The court treats tapping “Register” as assent when paired with clear notice. Contrast with designs where the same tap serves a different, misleading purpose (Sgouros). Issue reserved on remand. The panel leaves waiver (litigation conduct) for the district court. Flag how and why waiver can be decided by a court rather than the arbitrator. Comparative authority. Be prepared to compare Meyer with Nicosia (hyperlink too distant and cluttered context) and Cullinane (First Circuit finds Uber’s design inadequate). What concrete drafting/UX lessons emerge? Learning prompts If you were Uber’s product counsel in 2014, what one change would most fortify assent? If you represent riders, which single design change would most undermine assent? Ground answers in the record facts the court emphasizes. Draft a one-sentence notice that’s more conspicuous than Uber’s but still realistic on a phone. Apply Meyer’s framework to a modern OAuth/SSO “Sign in with X” flow. Does a federated-login button complicate notice and assent? Which screen owns the duty to warn? Primary sources Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) (opinion). Meyer v. Kalanick, 200 F. Supp. 3d 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (district court opinion cited by the panel). Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002) Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016). Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp., 817 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2016) Cullinane v. Uber Techs., Inc., 893 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2018)

S9 Ep 3Shareholder Litigation – Episode 3: Pleading the Case
In this third episode of the shareholder litigation series on Organized: The Business Law Breakdown, Professor Seth C. Oranburg examines pleading standards as essential gatekeepers in direct and derivative actions. Discover how federal rules under Twombly, Iqbal, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act demand plausible, detailed complaints for direct claims involving material misstatements, scienter, reliance, and causation under SEC Rule 10b-5. For derivative suits in Delaware or under the Model Business Corporation Act, learn the rigorous requirements for alleging demand futility via the Zuckerberg test, continuous ownership, and breaches of fiduciary duties like care and loyalty. Through practical examples, hypotheticals, and ties to agency costs, the episode highlights how these standards prevent frivolous suits while enabling accountability. Emerging issues, such as cybersecurity disclosure failures, illustrate evolving challenges. Perfect for law students, business owners, and corporate practitioners, this installment advances the civil procedure playbook with checklists for crafting robust complaints.