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 jury verdict which found that Bundy Baking Solutions and its affiliate, Synova, misappropriated the trade secrets of Mallet and Company. This included trade secrets related to Mallet’s release agent products. The jury also found in favor of Mallet on several other claims.


With the jury having ruled in Mallet’s favor, Mallet filed for injunctive relief on April 21, 2025 to prevent Bundy Baking Solutions and Synova from using the Mallet trade secrets the jury found they misappropriated. Mallet’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction also seeks other relief based upon the jury’s verdict, designed to ensure Mallet’s non-disclosure and other agreements with its employees are respected by Bundy Baking Solutions and Synova going forward.


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.


Read the Vantage Press Release

Latest Update

In response to Mallet's 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’s 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's attorneys urged that the information under seal be removed from the public docket. Mallet's attorneys also moved for sanctions.


Bundy's attorneys then asked the Court to strike Mallet's motion for procedural reasons. In response, the Judge in the case issued the following order:


U.S. District Court

Western District of Pennsylvania

Notice of Electronic Filing


The following transaction was entered on 4/30/2025 at 8:12 PM EDT and filed on 4/30/2025

Case Name:

MALLET AND COMPANY INC. v. LACAYO et al

Case Number:

2:19-cv-01409-CB

Filer:

WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 04/12/2025

Document Number:

522(No document attached) 

Docket Text:
ORDER. Defendants' Motion (Doc. [517]) to strike Plaintiff's sealed filing at Doc. [516] is DENIED. Plaintiff's filing was appropriate under the circumstances. Regardless of the substantive outcome, the Court is disappointed with the Bundy Defendants' 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 - or the hole cannot be dug deeper - 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's 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's 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)

On May 5, 2025, Bundy/Synova filed a brief opposing Mallet’s Motion for Sanctions. Mallet filed a reply to this brief on May 7, 2025. In compliance with the Court's orders, both filings redact information that the jury concluded were Mallet and Company's trade secrets.

The Verdict: April 11, 2025


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’s 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 “willful and malicious.” The jury also concluded that Bundy and Synova had engaged in unfair competition against Mallet and chose to award punitive damages for conduct deemed “outrageous.”

A summary of the jury’s verdict can be found in Mallet and Company’s recently filed brief in support of its Motion for Permanent Injunction.

"At trial, Mallet & Company, Inc. (“Mallet”) prevailed on every claim it brought against Defendants Russell T. Bundy Associates, Inc. d/b/a Bundy Baking Solutions (“Bundy”), Synova, LLC (“Synova”), Ada Lacayo (“Lacayo”) and William “Chick” Bowers (“Bowers”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The evidence overwhelmingly showed—and the jury found—that all Defendants participated in an unlawful scheme to steal Mallet’s trade secrets and other confidential business information in order to jumpstart Synova’s 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’s best-selling release agent, Super P. Bundy and Synova pulled out all the stops to commit this theft, over the course of years—targeting 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’ conduct “outrageous”, “malicious, wanton, willful, [and] oppressive” and, as a result, it awarded more than three million dollars in punitive damages."

Relevant Links:

 

The Jury Verdict

Mallet and Company: Closing Arguments

Pre-Trial Narrative

Motion for Preliminary Injunction: April 21, 2025


Although a federal jury found in Mallet’s favor, the litigation is not over.  According to Mallet’s Brief in Support of Its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on April 21, 2025:
"Equitable relief is warranted because, even today, Defendants’ misappropriation continues. Synova possesses and is using Mallet’s 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’s stolen and misappropriated trade secrets. Under black letter law, Synova should be permanently enjoined from possessing, disclosing, and using Mallet’s trade secrets, including the formula for Synova’s Supra 130, actively advertised and marketed as equal to (“=”) Mallet’s Super P. ...
"... Defendants continue to use and profit from Mallet’s Trade Secrets with impunity—and the threat of their public disclosure remains high. For these reasons, and those explained further below, permanent injunctive relief is critical to safeguard Mallet’s Trade Secrets. Mallet now moves for permanent injunctive relief ..."

For a summary of the evidence that Mallet presented at the trial, read the closing argument of Mallet’s trial counsel here.

Relevant Links:


Motion for Permanent Injunction (filed April 21, 2025)

Brief in Support of Mallet's Motion for Permanent Injunction 

Learn more about the Vantage Food portfolio of release agents
Contact Us
X
Cookies help us improve your website experience.
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies.
Confirm