$7.25 Million Verdict in Trade Secrets Case

A federal jury in Pennsylvania awarded $7.25 million to Mallet & Co. after finding that Synova LLC, its parent company Bundy Baking Solutions, and two former Mallet employees misappropriated trade secrets. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleged that Synova and Bundy launched their competing baking chemicals venture using proprietary formulas and confidential business strategies stolen from Mallet.

Mallet, a Pittsburgh-based manufacturer of baking release agents—specialized oils that prevent bakery items from sticking to pans—claimed that former employees Ada Lacayo and William Bowers shared sensitive information with Bundy, enabling Synova to enter the market without the cost or time required for independent development. The company also accused the Bundy family of deliberately recruiting Mallet’s key employees to gain access to those proprietary assets.

Defense attorneys representing Synova and Bundy countered that the formulas in question were composed of widely used vegetable and mineral oils, asserting they did not meet the legal threshold of trade secrets. However, Mallet’s counsel maintained that the recipes and customer insights provided Synova with an unfair competitive advantage, and that these trade secrets were instrumental in the rapid launch of Synova’s business.

The Trial

The trial, which began with opening arguments on April 7, 2025, unfolded over the course of a week in Pittsburgh’s federal court. Mallet’s attorneys presented evidence that Lacayo and Bowers violated non-compete agreements, shared proprietary formulas with their new employer, and breached their fiduciary obligations. The company further alleged that Synova and Bundy not only enabled these breaches but also actively interfered with Mallet’s contractual relationships.

While the defense maintained that the information was readily available in the public domain, jurors were ultimately persuaded that the information constituted trade secrets under both state and federal law. Notably, the jury also found in favor of Mallet on the claim of inevitable disclosure, agreeing that the former employees would inevitably draw upon Mallet’s confidential knowledge in their new roles at Synova.

The Verdict

The jury returned a substantial verdict in favor of Mallet, awarding a total of $7.25 million in damages. This included $4.25 million in compensatory damages for lost profits and business disruption, and an additional $3 million in punitive damages intended to penalize the defendants for their conduct.

Although the jury found that Lacayo and Bowers had breached their agreements and fiduciary duties, it awarded only $1 in damages against each of them individually, signaling that the most significant harm was caused by the corporate misuse of Mallet’s trade secrets. However, the jury did find that Synova and Bundy tortiously interfered with Mallet’s contractual relationships and abetted the former employees’ contractual breaches. For those claims, the jury awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

In total, the verdict amounted to one of the more significant trade secret awards in recent years within the baking and food manufacturing sector.

What’s Next?

In a statement following the verdict, Mallet & Co. and its parent company, Vantage Specialty Chemicals, applauded the jury's decision. “The jury saw the wrongdoing in this case, as well as the resulting damage to us, and took appropriate action,” the companies said. “We feel the verdict sends a clear message that attempts to misappropriate trade secrets should not, and will not, be tolerated.”

Ronald L. Hicks Jr., lead counsel for Synova and Bundy, acknowledged the disappointment felt by his clients but pointed out that the verdict fell far short of the $25 million Mallet had initially sought. “The Bundy family also remains steadfast that Synova LLC was created to expand the brand of exceptional service and quality to the baking community and that all of Synova's products were created in a proprietary manner to be best in class—and not a copy of any competitor's product,” Hicks said in a statement to Law360. “The Bundy family looks forward to the next phase of the proceedings to equitably resolve this dispute.”

The outcome may mark the beginning of further legal maneuvering. With an appeal likely, the case could set precedent on the treatment of trade secret claims involving former employees and industry competitors, particularly in situations where the proprietary nature of formulas is challenged.

Law Firms Involved

Mallet & Co. was represented by attorneys Carmine R. Zarlenga, E. Brantley Webb, Catherine Medvene, and Elaine Liu of Mayer Brown LLP, along with Marla N. Presley and Laura C. Bunting of Jackson Lewis PC.

Synova LLC and Bundy Baking Solutions were represented by Ronald L. Hicks Jr., Carolyn B. McGee, Kevin C. Meacham, and Cara L. Brack of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Ada Lacayo and William Bowers represented themselves.

Case Information: Mallet & Co. v. Lacayo et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01409, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.