{"id":7761,"date":"2026-01-07T16:13:57","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T15:13:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/?p=7761"},"modified":"2026-01-21T16:32:49","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T15:32:49","slug":"mallet-trade-secret-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/mallet-trade-secret-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Mallet Trade Secret Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In April of 2025, a Pittsburgh jury returned a $7.25 million verdict in favor of Vantage Specialty Chemicals and its subsidiary Mallet and Company. The case involved a multiyear-long trade secret dispute with Bundy Baking and its Synova division over Bundy\u2019s alleged misappropriation of Mallet formulas for release agent products.<\/p>\n<p>That jury verdict was followed by a December 31, 2025, ruling that granted Mallet\u2019s motion for sanctions and attorneys\u2019 fees, as well as an injunction preventing Synova from selling its best-selling product, Supra 130, or any other product derived from Mallet intellectual property.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Jury Found for Mallet and Company on All Counts<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the April trial, a federal jury in Pittsburgh found that Bundy Baking misappropriated 11 trade secrets, particularly Mallet\u2019s product formulas, to launch the Synova business. The jury awarded punitive damages based on a finding that the misappropriation was \u201cwillful and malicious.\u201d It awarded $4.25 million in compensatory and $3 million in punitive damages.<\/p>\n<p><strong>December Ruling Emphasized Bundy\u2019s \u201cWillful and Malicious\u201d Theft<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In her December ruling, the trial judge ruled that Bundy\/Synova should face sanctions for disclosing Mallet\u2019s trade secrets in a post-trial filing. The trial judge granted Mallet\u2019s motion for an injunction to stop Bundy\/Synova from making and selling any product derived from Mallet trade secrets\u2014and specifically Synova\u2019s Supra 130 product and any product with the substantially similar formula. The ruling also denied the Bundy\u2019s motion for a new trial.<\/p>\n<p>Adding to the original $7.25 million jury verdict against Bundy, the judge awarded Mallet and Company more than $11 million in attorneys\u2019 fees and costs, and $617,000 in prejudgment interest, bringing the current total amount Bundy Baking must pay to $19,265,409 plus post-judgment interest. There will be additional fees and costs to come as the court considers sanctions against Bundy and its legal team.<\/p>\n<p>Release agents are substances applied to baking surfaces to prevent dough or batter from sticking, ensuring that baked goods can be removed without tearing or deformation.<\/p>\n<h4>In response to inquiries from customers and other interested parties, Mallet and Company (Mallet), a wholly owned subsidiary of Vantage Specialty Chemicals, Inc., (Vantage) provides the following information and court filings regarding an April 11, 2025\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/22019cv01409-0496-JURY-VERDICT-in-favor-of-Plaintiff-MALLET-AND-COMPANY-INC.pdf\">jury verdict<\/a>\u00a0which found that Bundy Baking Solutions and its affiliate, Synova, misappropriated the trade secrets of Mallet and Company. This included trade secrets related to Mallet\u2019s release agent products. The jury also found in favor of Mallet on several other claims.<\/h4>\n<p>With the jury having ruled in Mallet\u2019s favor, Mallet filed for<a href=\"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Mallet-v-Lacayo-Motion-for-Permanent-Injunction.pdf\">\u00a0injunctive relief\u00a0<\/a>on April 21, 2025 to prevent Bundy Baking Solutions and Synova from using the Mallet trade secrets the jury found they misappropriated. Mallet\u2019s\u00a0Motion for a Permanent Injunction\u00a0also seeks other relief based upon the jury\u2019s verdict, designed to ensure Mallet\u2019s non-disclosure and other agreements with its employees are respected by Bundy Baking Solutions and Synova going forward.<\/p>\n<p>Mallet and Vantage have, and continue to be, leaders in food processing aid technology, including release agents. After several years of litigation, the company looks forward to the eventual resolution of this matter, as it continues to provide its valued customers with market-leading release agent solutions.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/jury-delivers-verdict-finding-bundy-baking-solutions-and-synova-misappropriated-the-trade-secrets-of-mallet-and-company-a-wholly-owned-subsidiary-of-vantage-specialty-chemicals\/\"><em><strong>Read Vantage Press Release<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<div class=\"uk-panel uk-margin\">\n<h3>Latest Update<\/h3>\n<p>In response to Mallet\u2019s Motion for Permanent Injunction, Bundy\/Synova filed an opposing brief with an affidavit that Mallet and Company claims included a portion of the very trade secrets the jury in the litigation decided were misappropriated from Mallet and Company. Mallet\u2019s attorneys alleged the Bundy defendants put confidential trade secret information on the public docket despite a Court Order not to do so. In a letter motion to the Court, Mallet\u2019s attorneys urged that the information under seal be removed from the public docket. Mallet\u2019s attorneys also moved for sanctions.<\/p>\n<p>Bundy\u2019s attorneys then asked the Court to strike Mallet\u2019s motion for procedural reasons. In response, the Judge in the case issued the following order:<\/p>\n<p><strong>U.S. District Court<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Western District of Pennsylvania<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Notice of Electronic Filing<br \/>\nThe following transaction was entered on 4\/30\/2025 at 8:12 PM EDT and filed on 4\/30\/2025<\/p>\n<table border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Name:<\/strong><u><\/u><u><\/u><\/td>\n<td>MALLET AND COMPANY INC. v. LACAYO et al<u><\/u><u><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Number:<\/strong><u><\/u><u><\/u><\/td>\n<td><a title=\"https:\/\/ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov\/cgi-bin\/DktRpt.pl?261184\" href=\"https:\/\/ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov\/cgi-bin\/DktRpt.pl?261184\" data-auth=\"NotApplicable\" data-linkindex=\"0\">2:19-cv-01409-CB<\/a><u><\/u><u><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Filer:<\/strong><u><\/u><u><\/u><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\"><strong>WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 04\/12\/2025<\/strong><u><\/u><u><\/u><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Document Number:<\/strong><u><\/u><u><\/u><\/td>\n<td>522(No document attached)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Docket Text:<br \/>\n<strong>ORDER. Defendants\u2019 Motion (Doc. [517]) to strike Plaintiff\u2019s sealed filing at Doc. [516] is DENIED. Plaintiff\u2019s filing was appropriate under the circumstances. Regardless of the substantive outcome, the Court is disappointed with the Bundy Defendants\u2019 handling of these matters. Defendants have had their day in court, and the jury did not break their way. There has been no order of this Court that permits the floodgates to now open, and asserted trade secrets to flow through unprotected. Indeed, the undersigned is flummoxed as to why Defendants might perceive that the flagrant disregard of established and long-standing protocols in this case would be acceptable. Lest the Bundy Defendants (or their lawyers) believe there is little left to lose \u2013 or the hole cannot be dug deeper \u2013 they are mistaken. Those involved are on notice: the Court will not allow what remains of this case to degenerate into a free-for-all. Norms will be respected, and good faith demanded. Should anyone fall short, the consequences will be significant, and swift. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. [519]) by 5\/5\/2025. Defendants are expressly ORDERED to refrain from filing on the public docket any information or materials addressed by or reasonably flowing from Plaintiff\u2019s objections. Defendants are GRANTED leave to file their response under seal (the redaction requirement remains in effect). A failure to comply with these instructions, directly or in spirit and intent, WILL result in the entry of sanctions, separate and apart from the ones urged by Plaintiff. Should sanctions for noncompliance be entered, in this instance or moving forward, they may be entered jointly and severally (i.e., against Defendants and their counsel), as appropriate. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 4\/30\/2025. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dcd)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>On May 5, 2025, Bundy\/Synova filed a brief opposing Mallet\u2019s Motion for Sanctions. Mallet filed a reply to this brief on May 7, 2025. In compliance with the Court\u2019s orders, both filings redact information that the jury concluded were Mallet and Company\u2019s trade secrets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"uk-panel uk-margin\">\n<h3>The Verdict: April 11, 2025<\/h3>\n<p>On April 11, 2025, following a week-long trial, a federal jury in Pittsburgh awarded Mallet and Company $7.25 million in damages from Bundy Baking Solutions and Synova. The jury found that Bundy and Synova misappropriated Mallet\u2019s trade secrets when they launched their Synova release-agent business in 2019. The jury awarded punitive damages based on the finding that the misappropriation was \u201cwillful and malicious.\u201d The jury also concluded that Bundy and Synova had engaged in unfair competition against Mallet and chose to award punitive damages for conduct deemed \u201coutrageous.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>A summary of the jury\u2019s verdict can be found in Mallet and Company\u2019s recently filed brief in support of its\u00a0<em><a href=\"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Mallet-v-Lacayo-Motion-for-Permanent-Injunction.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Motion for Permanent Injunction.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong><em>\u201cAt trial, Mallet &amp; Company, Inc. (\u201cMallet\u201d) prevailed on every claim it brought against Defendants Russell T. Bundy Associates, Inc. d\/b\/a Bundy Baking Solutions (\u201cBundy\u201d), Synova, LLC (\u201cSynova\u201d), Ada Lacayo (\u201cLacayo\u201d) and William \u201cChick\u201d Bowers (\u201cBowers\u201d) (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d). The evidence overwhelmingly showed\u2014and the jury found\u2014that all Defendants participated in an unlawful scheme to steal Mallet\u2019s trade secrets and other confidential business information in order to jumpstart Synova\u2019s entry into the competitive baking release agent market. Specifically, the jury found that Defendants stole eleven Mallet trade secrets, including the highly secret formulas for Mallet\u2019s best-selling release agent, Super P. Bundy and Synova pulled out all the stops to commit this theft, over the course of years\u2014targeting then-current Mallet employees, promising them payments and employment; tracking down former Mallet employees, taking advantage, and coaxing confidential information out all the while. As was evident from their cover up efforts, Defendants did all of this knowing that their misconduct violated ongoing Mallet confidentiality and noncompete obligations. Ultimately, the jury found Defendants\u2019 conduct \u201coutrageous\u201d, \u201cmalicious, wanton, willful, [and] oppressive\u201d and, as a result, it awarded more than three million dollars in punitive damages.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/22019cv01409-0496-JURY-VERDICT-in-favor-of-Plaintiff-MALLET-AND-COMPANY-INC.pdf\">The Jury Verdict<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Mallet-and-Company-Closing-Argument-1.pdf\"><strong><em>Mallet and Company: Closing Arguments\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/ECF-329-Pretrial-Narrative-Statement-Redacted.pdf\">Pre-Trial Narrative<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<h3>Motion for Preliminary Injunction: April 21, 2025<\/h3>\n<p>Although a federal jury found in Mallet\u2019s favor, the litigation is not over. \u00a0According to Mallet\u2019s\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Mallet-v-Lacayo-Motion-for-Permanent-Injunction.pdf\"><strong>Brief in Support of Its Motion for Preliminary Injunction<\/strong><\/a>, filed on April 21, 2025:\u00a0\u201cEquitable relief is warranted because, even today, Defendants\u2019 misappropriation continues. Synova possesses and is using Mallet\u2019s Trade Secrets. It continues to manufacture, sell, and reap significant financial benefits from its Supra 130 product, the very same product that the jury found was based on Mallet\u2019s stolen and misappropriated trade secrets. Under black letter law, Synova should be permanently enjoined from possessing, disclosing, and using Mallet\u2019s trade secrets, including the formula for Synova\u2019s Supra 130, actively advertised and marketed as equal to (\u201c=\u201d) Mallet\u2019s Super P. \u2026 \u201c\u2026 Defendants continue to use and profit from Mallet\u2019s Trade Secrets with impunity\u2014and the threat of their public disclosure remains high. For these reasons, and those explained further below, permanent injunctive relief is critical to safeguard Mallet\u2019s Trade Secrets. Mallet now moves for permanent injunctive relief \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<p>For a summary of the evidence that Mallet presented at the trial, read the closing argument of Mallet\u2019s trial counsel\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/food.vantagegrp.com\/-\/media\/Food\/Trade-Secrets-Verdict\/Mallet-and-Company-Closing-Argument.pdf\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In April of 2025, a Pittsburgh jury returned a $7.25 million verdict in favor of Vantage Specialty Chemicals and its subsidiary Mallet and Company. The case involved a multiyear-long trade secret dispute with Bundy Baking and its Synova division over Bundy\u2019s alleged misappropriation of Mallet formulas for release agent products. That jury verdict was followed [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7701,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"market":[75],"class_list":["post-7761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-press-release","market-food"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7761","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7761"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7761\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7769,"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7761\/revisions\/7769"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7701"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7761"},{"taxonomy":"market","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vantagegrp.wp.cooldomain.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/market?post=7761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}