FOLLOW US

The legal battle between aviation magnate Farhad Azima and private investigator Nicholas Del Rosso has taken a new twist as a federal judge demanded deeper scrutiny into a central question: Does Azima actually own the trade secrets he claims were hacked and exposed?

In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge William L. Osteen Jr. said he was "concerned" by both parties’ failure to fully address whether Azima has statutory standing under the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act. The judge called for supplemental briefing from both Azima and Del Rosso, whose investigative firm Vital Management Services Inc. is also a defendant.

The Hacked Secrets That Might Not Be His?

The case centers on allegations that Del Rosso orchestrated a targeted cyberattack on Azima’s email accounts, leaking sensitive business information online in a smear campaign allegedly triggered by Azima’s soured business deal with the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates.

Azima claims the fund and its legal counsel, Dechert LLP, hired Del Rosso to breach his data and weaponize it, with hacked documents surfacing on the web in 2018 and 2019. Though Azima settled his claims against Dechert in a U.K. court last year, his U.S. case against Del Rosso lives on, focusing now on trade secret misappropriation and civil conspiracy.

But the issue now gripping the court is whether Azima can prove he legally "owns" the trade secrets in question.

“Ownership” in a Legal Fog

Del Rosso’s legal team has asserted that many of the emails Azima claims as proprietary — including pricing data and other business details — belong not to him personally but to other companies. Judge Osteen admitted the case law is murky, noting that the state statute fails to define the term "owner," and state appellate courts have yet to weigh in on how ownership is established under the law.

“This court has not yet been able to identify record evidence establishing that plaintiff has a property right in many of his proffered trade secrets,” Osteen wrote. “Rather, the record evidence suggests that many of the proffered trade secrets constitute business information generated by several of plaintiff’s companies.”

The judge emphasized that Azima must prove some form of property right in the alleged trade secrets to continue his case — but acknowledged that the statute and its legislative history leave key questions unanswered.

A Legal Game of Chess

Judge Osteen laid out specific questions for both parties to address, including whether Azima can claim ownership by virtue of: