The present article contains a discussion of several aspects important for the protection of trade secrets. It provides analysis of certain facets of trade secret, definition, for instance, the meaning of commercial value of keeping the information secret. This article also views the scope of the duty of an employer to inform his employees about the trade secret status of the respective information and provides a suggestion about interpretation and exemption from this duty. In addition, this article also examines the mental element of infringer as precondition of his liability, as well as the meaning of non-competition agreements between the employers and employees as a tool for protection from trade secret infringements.

The present paper examines certain aspects of liability for the damages caused by abnormally dangerous activities, mainly viewing them in the context of Latvian law. It addresses the questions which activities (and due to which particularities) shall be treated as abnormally dangerous, what kind of liability models could be applied for the compensation of damages caused by such activities, what is the role of insurance in this respect, to what extent strict liability or stricter forms of liability should be applied, as well as who shall be held liable for these damages.

No abstract

Although the regulation and very existence of commercial pledge as one of the types of registered pledge in Latvia have certain benefits for legal transactions and economy in general, several issues may be identified in respect to the commercial pledge regulations in Latvia. These issues are mainly related to attempts to avoid detention rights, which other persons may have over the property, which sometimes actually and sometimes allegedly is pledged to the other person under the commercial pledge, as well as uncertainties related to the scope of the pledged property. Within this article, the author analyses these issues and proposes solutions to them mainly in the form of several amendments to the Latvian Commercial Pledge Law (Komercķīlas likums).

Various Latvian legal scholars have provided different opinions as to the legal substance of 3 month period time limit, provided in the paragraph 6, article 172 of Latvian Commercial Law. The present article is intended as a discussion with authors – Professor Jānis Kārkliņš, Mg. iur., Dr. iur. cand. Edijs Brants and Mg. iur., Dr. iur. cand. Evija Novicāne, who have provided the opinion that the said time limit is set only in order to discipline representatives of a company to file a claim against members of management or supervisory board, shareholders or auditor in due time. In author’s opinion, the failure to file the said claim within specified time limit precludes a company from further legal proceedings against the said defendants.