What steps should Dracca take to protect the design of SmoothGlide from competitors?

A Dracca employee, Lloyd London, leaked the findings of the safety study to the public and a consumer watchdog group. In a press conference called by London himself, London explained the SmoothGlide safety testing process in detail. Dracca employed London as director of operations for stroller manufacturing, and his contract contained a confidentiality provision that was verbally agreed to as an addition to Londons written employment contract. London is in his third year of a five-year employment contract.

Based on the information obtained by London, the consumer watchdog group known as Hands for Babies sued Dracca, claiming negligence in safety testing.

In light of these facts, please respond to the following questions using course material and credible outside research to support your findings. Please submit findings in a three- to five-page paper, using APA format.

Can Dracca hold London responsible for misappropriation of a trade secret? Why or why not? Use legal principles discussed in the readings to support your conclusion.
Is the confidentiality provision within Londons employment contract valid pursuant to the Statute of Frauds? Why or why not?
Based on the elements required for a claim of negligence, will Hands for Babies be successful in its suit against Dracca? Why or why not?
In light of product liability concerns, what are the considerations Dracca should take regarding whether to issue a voluntary recall of the SmoothGlide? Use specific information from the readings on product liability topics to support your recommendations.
What steps should Dracca take to protect the design of SmoothGlide from competitors?
What actions (internal and external) do you recommend to Dracca to remedy the ethical and legal considerations of this scenario? Be specific and detailed, and be sure to base recommendations on relevant legal and ethical principles.