Royal Attorneys Represent Defendants in Alleged Theft of $85 Million of Sensitive Business Information

October 14, 2024

Attorneys Amy Royal and Trevor Brice represent two Defendants, Prosegur Security USA (“Prosegur”) and its senior vice president Fernando A. Arango (“Arango”) in a lawsuit accusing Arango and Prosegur of violations of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit further accuses Arango of breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and violations of trade secrets and unfair practices laws.



A Connecticut federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Prosegur and Arango. The order mandates that Prosegur and Arango refrain from disclosing any confidential information obtained from Arango’s former employer, United Security Inc. (USI). The injunction requires Prosegur to certify that no USI trade secrets are stored on its systems and to preserve evidence related to the alleged misappropriation. USI alleges that Arango downloaded numerous confidential files, including sensitive business information valued at $85 million, before joining Prosegur.


Prosegur and Arango deny any wrongdoing, asserting that competitive pricing, not misappropriated information, led to the acquisition of a key USI client. “Defendants were able to offer plaintiff’s client a better price, without the use of knowledge and/or alleged trade secrets, and subsequently garnered their business,” stated Prosegur.


Trevor Brice of The Royal Law Firm LLP further added that, “Defendants deny liability as to the claims brought by plaintiff.”


An article detailing this court decision was published in Law360, please click this link to read more.

Brandon Calton admitted to the United States District Court of Connecticut

June 10, 2025
Brandon Calton is now admitted to the United States District Court, Connecticut! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Brandon is admitted in Massachusetts, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States District Court of Connecticut.

Federal Court Vacates EEOC’s “Abortion Accommodation Mandate” in PWFA

By Heather Child • June 9, 2025
On May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck down a provision in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final rule under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions that are not medically necessary. Background Information: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in December 2022, and it became effective in June 2023. The law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified applicants or employees who have physical or mental conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. In April 2024, The EEOC issued its final interpretation of the PWFA including abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions” thereby requiring employers to provide accommodations related to abortion. In May 2024, the states of Mississippi and Louisiana sued the EEOC, arguing that the interpretation conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and their respective state laws on abortion. In June 2024, Judge Joseph found that the EEOC exceeded its authority and issued a preliminary injunction postponing the effective date of the interpretation to provide accommodation for elective abortions until final judgment was entered in this matter. The final judgment was entered on May 21, 2025, that remanded the matter to the EEOC to revise the final rule and all related implementing regulations and guidances. Employer Takeaways: While employers are no longer (as of now) REQUIRED to provide accommodation for elective abortions, the remainder of the PWFA remains in full effect The decision to have or not have an abortion remains protected under Title VII The PWFA does not supersede state or local laws providing greater protection for pregnant workers. It is important to stay up to date on state regulations to ensure employers are complying with state laws. While it is still unclear how this ruling will impact employers nationwide, it is still important to continue to stay up to date on ever-changing legislation.  If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.