PENNSYLVANIA — A Pittsburgh federal jury has awarded $7.25 million to Mallet & Co., a baking chemicals manufacturer, after finding that former business partners and employees misappropriated trade secrets involving proprietary baking release agent formulas. The jury’s decision followed a weeklong trial and includes both compensatory and punitive damages.

The verdict, issued Friday, found that Synova LLC, its parent Bundy Baking Solutions, and former Mallet employees Ada Lacayo and William Bowers unlawfully used confidential formulas to launch a rival business. Jurors awarded $4.25 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages in the Mallet trade secrets lawsuit verdict.

Trade Secrets and Fiduciary Breaches

Mallet accused Bundy and Synova of building their new release agents business by poaching Mallet employees and copying confidential baking release agent formulas — lubricants used to keep commercial baked goods from sticking to pans. The lawsuit alleged that Lacayo and Bowers violated noncompete and confidentiality agreements, and that the defendants breached fiduciary duties, committed tortious interference, and violated state and federal trade secrets laws.

While the jury found that Lacayo and Bowers had violated their duties, they awarded only $1 each in damages against the two individually. However, the jury also found they would "inevitably disclose" Mallet’s trade secrets simply by continuing their work at Synova until their 2020 departures.

On broader claims, including tortious interference and abetting breaches of contract, the jury awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages against Bundy and Synova.

Mallet Sought $25 Million in Damages

Mallet initially sought up to $25 million, alleging significant profit losses due to the alleged copying of its products and theft of customers.

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

Defendants Push Back on Allegations

Attorneys for Synova and Bundy argued during trial that the formulas in question were not true trade secrets, describing them as basic combinations of vegetable and mineral oils commonly used across the industry. They emphasized that Bundy already had knowledge of Mallet’s products through a past joint effort to win a contract with Grupo Bimbo, a major Mexican bakery conglomerate.

In a post-verdict statement, Ronald L. Hicks Jr., counsel for Synova and Bundy, said the Bundy family was disappointed but emphasized the award was far lower than what Mallet had sought.

“The Bundy family remains steadfast that Synova was created to deliver proprietary, best-in-class products — not copies,” Hicks said, noting that the family looks forward to “equitable resolution” in the next phase of proceedings.

Legal Representation and Case Details

• Mallet & Co. is represented by 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 are 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 are representing themselves.

The case is Mallet & Co. v. Lacayo et al., case number 2:19-cv-01409, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.