oh-commercial-disputes - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: oh-commercial-disputes description: > Use when handling an Ohio commercial / business litigation matter — trade secrets under the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA), the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the B2B / competitor analog, distinct from the consumer-only CSPA), fraudulent transfer under Ohio's UFTA (Ohio has NOT adopted the renamed UVTA), corporate disputes under the General Corporation Law, LLC disputes under the Ohio Revised LLC Act (wholly replaced effective 2022 — verify section numbers), arbitration, Civ. R. 9(B) fraud particularity, common-law business torts, and non-compete reasonableness. Triggers include "Ohio commercial dispute", "Ohio business litigation", "Ohio trade secrets", "OUTSA", "Ohio deceptive trade practices", "Ohio fraudulent transfer", "Ohio LLC dispute", "Ohio shareholder derivative", "Ohio corporation dissolution", "Ohio arbitration", "Ohio non-compete", "Ohio business tort", "Ohio charging order", "Ohio commercial docket". version: 0.1.1

Ohio Commercial Disputes — Substantive Framework

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Verify every cite against current R.C. text and current case law before filing. The Ohio LLC Act was wholly replaced effective February 11, 2022, and business-tort and non-compete doctrine is largely judge-made. Commercial matters can carry large exposure — strongly recommend consulting a licensed Ohio attorney.

Trade secrets — the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Ohio's trade-secret law is codified as the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA) at R.C. 1333.61 to 1333.69. Verbatim text lives at oh-law-references/references/oh-statutes-debt/RC-Chapter-1333.md.

Definition

R.C. 1333.61 defines "trade secret" and "misappropriation." A trade secret is information (including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, plus business and financial information) that (1) derives independent economic value from not being generally known and (2) is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Both prongs are essential — the "reasonable efforts" element is where most claims live or die.

Remedies

Injunctive relief — R.C. 1333.62. Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined; in exceptional circumstances an injunction may instead condition future use on a reasonable royalty (R.C. 1333.62(B)).
Damages — R.C. 1333.63(A). A complainant may recover both the actual loss and the unjust enrichment not already counted in actual loss, or — in lieu of those — a reasonable royalty.
Exemplary damages — R.C. 1333.63(B). If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award punitive or exemplary damages up to three times the R.C. 1333.63(A) award. (Note: the statute as pulled says "three times," not "two times.")
Attorney's fees — R.C. 1333.64. The court may award fees to the prevailing party for (A) a bad-faith misappropriation claim, (B) a bad-faith motion to terminate an injunction, or (C) willful and malicious misappropriation.
Limitations — R.C. 1333.66. Action must commence within four years after the misappropriation is or should have been discovered; a continuing misappropriation is a single claim.

Statutory preemption / displacement

R.C. 1333.67(A) displaces conflicting common-law tort, restitutionary, and other civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret. This is the single most important strategic feature: a plaintiff cannot smuggle the same facts in as conversion, unjust enrichment, or tortious interference if the gravamen is trade-secret theft.
R.C. 1333.67(B) carves out (1) contractual remedies, (2) other civil remedies not based on misappropriation, and (3) criminal remedies. Plead contract and non-trade-secret theories with care so they survive the displacement bar.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act — the B2B / competitor lane

R.C. Chapter 4165 is the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the state analog of the federal Lanham Act. Verbatim at oh-law-references/references/oh-statutes-debt/RC-Chapter-4165.md.

How it differs from the CSPA

The DTPA reaches business-to-business and competitor conduct — passing off, false designation of origin, disparagement, deceptive advertising. Contrast the consumer-only Consumer Sales Practices Act at R.C. Chapter 1345 (covered by oh-consumer-debt), which protects individual consumers in personal / family / household transactions. A competitor-vs-competitor false- advertising claim belongs in R.C. 4165, not R.C. 1345.

Prohibited acts + remedies

R.C. 4165.02 lists the deceptive trade practices. Per R.C. 4165.03(A)(1), the complainant in an injunction action need not prove competition between the parties and need not prove monetary damage or loss of profits to obtain injunctive relief.
R.C. 4165.03(A)(2) — a person injured by a listed deceptive practice may recover actual damages.
R.C. 4165.03(B) — the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party; fees may be assessed against a defendant who willfully engaged in a deceptive practice knowing it to be deceptive, and against a plaintiff who knew the action to be groundless.
R.C. 4165.03(C) — the relief is in addition to other common-law and statutory remedies.
R.C. 4165.04 — exceptions (governmental-compliance conduct; innocent publishers/broadcasters).

Fraudulent transfer — R.C. Chapter 1336 (UFTA, not UVTA)

Ohio's fraudulent-transfer statute is the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act at R.C. Chapter 1336. Ohio has NOT adopted the renamed Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA) — cite it as the UFTA. Verbatim at oh-law-references/references/oh-statutes-debt/RC-Chapter-1336.md.

The two fraud tests

R.C. 1336.04 — a transfer/obligation is fraudulent as to a creditor (whether the claim arose before or after the transfer) where made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud (R.C. 1336.04(A)(1)) — proved through the badges of fraud in R.C. 1336.04(B) — or on a constructive-fraud theory without reasonably equivalent value while the debtor was undercapitalized or insolvency-bound (R.C. 1336.04(A)(2)).
R.C. 1336.05 — transfers fraudulent as to present creditors (claim arose before the transfer): no reasonably equivalent value + insolvency, plus the insider-preference variant.

Remedies + extinguishment

R.C. 1336.07 — creditor remedies: avoidance of the transfer, attachment, injunction, appointment of a receiver, or other relief (subject to the good-faith- transferee protections in R.C. 1336.08).
R.C. 1336.09 — the SOL / extinguishment clock: four years (with a one-year discovery tail for actual- intent claims under R.C. 1336.09(A)); a one-year window for the R.C. 1336.05(B) insider-preference variant. The claim is extinguished, not merely time-barred — a substantive cutoff, not an affirmative defense to be waived.

Corporations — R.C. Chapter 1701

The General Corporation Law is R.C. Chapter 1701. Verbatim at oh-law-references/references/oh-statutes-debt/RC-Chapter-1701.md.

Inspection rights

R.C. 1701.37 — the corporation must keep books and records of account, minutes, and a record of shareholders; qualifying shareholders may inspect for a reasonable and proper purpose.

Dissenters' / appraisal rights

R.C. 1701.85 — the dissenting-shareholder ("appraisal") remedy: a shareholder who dissents from a qualifying corporate action (merger, certain combinations, etc.) and complies with the statute's strict demand-and-notice steps is entitled to the fair cash value of the shares. Strict compliance with the procedural timeline is jurisdictional — small missteps forfeit the remedy.

Judicial dissolution

R.C. 1701.91 — judicial dissolution on grounds including insolvency (R.C. 1701.91(A)(2)(b)), failed/ abandoned corporate objects (R.C. 1701.91(A)(2)(c)), shareholder vote, director/shareholder deadlock (R.C. 1701.91(A)(4)), and corporations used for criminal purposes (R.C. 1701.91(A)(5)). The court may appoint a receiver and stay other proceedings (R.C. 1701.91(C)).

Derivative actions + close-corporation duty

Ohio's general-corporation derivative action is largely judge-made and procedurally governed by Civ. R. 23.1 (demand-or-futility verification); R.C. Chapter 1701 has no general numbered derivative-action section (the only chapter reference to a derivative action is the benefit-corporation provision at R.C. 1701.96(C)).
Close-corporation fiduciary duty — Crosby v. Beam, 47 Ohio St.3d 105 (1989), holds that majority shareholders in a close corporation owe a heightened fiduciary duty to the minority and that a minority shareholder may proceed by direct action (rather than derivatively) where a derivative recovery would unfairly benefit the wrongdoers. This is the principal escape hatch from the derivative-suit machinery in close-held Ohio companies.

LLCs — R.C. Chapter 1706 (Revised LLC Act, eff. 2/11/2022)

The Ohio Revised Limited Liability Company Act is R.C. Chapter 1706, declared as such at R.C. 1706.02. It became effective February 11, 2022, and wholly REPLACED the prior R.C. Chapter 1705 — pre-2022 authorities construing Chapter 1705 must be used with care. Verbatim at oh-law-references/references/oh-statutes-debt/RC-Chapter-1706.md.

Freedom of contract

R.C. 1706.08 — the operating agreement governs internal affairs with broad freedom of contract; the statute is largely a set of default rules the agreement can vary (subject to the non-waivable carve-outs the section lists). Read the operating agreement first — it, not the default statute, usually controls the dispute.

Charging order — the creditor's exclusive remedy

R.C. 1706.342 — a judgment creditor of a member or assignee may obtain a charging order against the member's membership interest; the creditor gets only the right to receive distributions the debtor would otherwise receive (R.C. 1706.342(A)), and the charging order is a lien (R.C. 1706.342(C)).
R.C. 1706.342(F) — the charging order is the sole and exclusive remedy; the creditor has no right to foreclose on the interest, to obtain possession, or to exercise other legal/equitable remedies against the membership interest or the LLC's property. This is the central asset-protection feature of an Ohio LLC.

Derivative actions

R.C. 1706.61 et seq. — unlike the corporation statute, the LLC Act provides a statutory derivative action (member standing at R.C. 1706.611, a written- demand requirement at R.C. 1706.612, a discretionary stay at R.C. 1706.613, and dismissal standards at R.C. 1706.614).

Judicial dissolution + winding up

R.C. 1706.47 — judicial dissolution of an LLC (e.g., where it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the operating agreement); winding up follows at R.C. 1706.471-1706.475.
No statutory minority-oppression buyout. Ohio's LLC Act contains no minority-oppression / mandatory-buyout remedy comparable to some states' LLC statutes; an aggrieved minority member's principal levers are the operating agreement, the R.C. 1706.61 derivative action, and R.C. 1706.47 judicial dissolution.

Arbitration — R.C. Chapter 2711 (Ohio Arbitration Act)

The Ohio Arbitration Act is R.C. Chapter 2711. Verbatim at oh-law-references/references/oh-statutes-debt/RC-Chapter-2711.md.

R.C. 2711.01 — written arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable (with the real- estate and international-arbitration carve-outs in R.C. 2711.01(B)).
R.C. 2711.02 — the court stays the trial of an arbitrable issue on application of a party (and an order granting or denying a stay is immediately appealable under R.C. 2711.02(C)).
R.C. 2711.03 — the court may order the parties to proceed to arbitration (compel) on a showing the agreement covers the dispute.
R.C. 2711.09 — application to confirm an award; R.C. 2711.10 — grounds to vacate (fraud, corruption, arbitrator misconduct, exceeding powers); R.C. 2711.11 — grounds to modify/correct; R.C. 2711.13 — the motion-to-vacate/modify procedure and the three-month filing window.
FAA preemption — where the contract involves interstate commerce, the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) applies and can preempt conflicting state-law defenses to arbitrability; analyze both the FAA and R.C. Chapter 2711 and brief the preemption posture explicitly.

Pleading fraud with particularity — Civ. R. 9(B)

Fraud and mistake must be pleaded with particularity under Civ. R. 9(B) (a court rule, not a statute — see oh-law-references/references/court-rules/CivilProcedure.md). This governs fraudulent-transfer actual-intent counts, common-law fraud, and fraud-flavored business torts: plead the who / what / when / where / how of each misrepresentation. Malice, intent, and knowledge may be averred generally, but the operative false statements must be specific.

Common-law business torts

These are judge-made and live alongside (and sometimes outside) the statutes above:

Tortious interference with contract / business relationships — Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (1995), states the elements: (1) a contract/business relationship, (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge of it, (3) intentional procurement of its breach, (4) lack of justification/privilege, and (5) resulting damages.
Civil conspiracy — a malicious combination of two or more persons causing injury, requiring an independent unlawful act as the predicate.
Conversion — wrongful exercise of dominion over another's personal property (watch the R.C. 1333.67 displacement bar where the property is a trade secret).
Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit — restitution where a benefit was conferred, knowingly retained, and retention without payment is inequitable (unavailable where an express contract governs the same subject).
Promissory estoppel — a clear and unambiguous promise, reasonable and foreseeable reliance, and injury from the reliance.

Non-compete / restrictive covenants (business-sale context)

Ohio enforces reasonable restrictive covenants under the common-law reasonableness test of Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21 (1975): a covenant is enforceable only to the extent it is reasonable — no greater than needed to protect a legitimate business interest, not unduly harsh on the covenantor, and not injurious to the public. Critically, Raimonde adopts the "blue-pencil" / reasonable-modification rule: an Ohio court may modify (narrow) an overbroad covenant to what is reasonable rather than voiding it outright. Covenants ancillary to the sale of a business (protecting acquired goodwill) are generally enforced more readily than pure employee non-competes.

Forum note — Ohio has no statewide business court

Ohio has no single statewide business or commercial court. Several large Common Pleas courts run commercial dockets under the Ohio Supreme Court's commercial-docket framework (Sup. R. governing commercial dockets) — assigning qualifying business cases (trade secrets, shareholder/LLC disputes, M&A, complex commercial contracts) to designated judges. Whether a commercial docket exists and how to request assignment is venue-specific — check the flagship venue skill for the county (e.g., oh-cuya, oh-frank, oh-hamil, oh-summit, oh-montgomery, oh-lucas, oh-stark, oh-butler) and the oh-county-courts roll-up, plus the assigned court's local rules.

Composition with other oh- skills

oh-statewide-format — Civ. R. 10 caption + filing
oh-first-30-days — answer / Civ. R. 12(B)(6) triage + affirmative defenses + counterclaims
oh-discovery — discovery mechanics (trade-secret protective orders under R.C. 1333.65; Civ. R. 33 cap)
oh-hearings — motion practice + oral argument + preliminary-injunction hearings
oh-deadlines — Civ. R. 6 computation + the SOLs above (R.C. 1333.66, R.C. 1336.09, R.C. 2711.13)
oh-post-judgment — judgment enforcement; LLC charging orders under R.C. 1706.342; award confirmation under R.C. 2711.09
oh-pro-se — pro-se framework
oh-fact-check — Ohio public-domain citation format + cite verification
oh-consumer-debt — the consumer-facing CSPA contrast (R.C. Chapter 1345) vs. this skill's B2B DTPA (R.C. 4165)
Flagship venue skills (oh-cuya, oh-frank, oh-hamil, oh-summit, oh-montgomery, oh-lucas, oh-stark, oh-butler) + oh-county-courts — for commercial-docket assignment and local rules