Client Alerts & Insights
Jury Finds Phillips 66 Liable For Misappropriating Trade Secrets in $605 Million Verdict
October 25, 2024
Authored By:
Last week, a California jury found Phillips 66 liable for misappropriating trade secrets from Propel Fuels Inc., a low-carbon renewable fuels retailer, and awarded Propel $605 million in damages.
In 2015, Propel went to market with a retail high-blend renewable diesel fuel that targeted the California market. Two years later, in 2017, Phillips 66 entered into negotiations for the acquisition of Propel. During due diligence, and after signing a non-disclosure agreement, Propel shared confidential information, including trade secrets, with Phillips 66. These trade secrets included proprietary strategies, formulas, financial data, and other confidential information. The following year, Phillips 66 abruptly terminated the acquisition negotiations, and entered the renewable fuels market in California shortly thereafter.
Propel then brought suit against Phillips 66 in 2022 for breach of the non-disclosure agreement and misappropriation of eighty-eight trade secrets. At trial, Phillips 66 claimed that Phillips 66 knew nothing about the renewable fuel business prior to receiving Propel’s confidential information, and Phillips 66’s entry into the renewable fuels market caused it direct competitive harm. The jury agreed with Propel, finding that Phillip 66’s emergence into the California renewable fuel market was not only premised on Propel’s trade secrets, but was also willful and malicious. After eight days of deliberation, the jury awarded Propel $605 million in damages.
This verdict underscores why proper due diligence, secure non-disclosure agreements, and protection of trade secrets are necessary during evaluations of and negotiations for potential acquisitions. If you have any questions, please reach out to:
Scott Humphrey at shumphrey@beneschlaw.com or 312.624.6420.
Katie Burnett at kburnett@beneschlaw.com or 312.624.6357.
Amakie Amattey at aamattey@beneschlaw.com or 312.506.3444.
Latest News
Ohio Board of Professional Conduct Issues Ohio Ethics Guide on Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers
Dispensary tip practices—especially involving hybrid roles like “Leads” or Agents-in-Charge—are increasingly being scrutinized as unlawful as a surge in wage-and-hour lawsuits claim that managers or employees with supervisory duties are improperly sharing in tips meant for front-line staff.
State AGs are Busy Bees: Benesch Continues to Monitor the Implications of Recent State AG Actions
State attorneys general are ramping up enforcement and guidance across a wide range of issues—from consumer protection and pricing transparency to AI use, data privacy and environmental harms—stepping in to fill perceived federal gaps.
Connecticut Broadens Data Privacy Act Requirements Effective July 1, 2026
Key Takeaways Revised Applicability Scope and Exemptions Effective July 1, 2026, the CTDPA’s existing applicability thresholds are reduced, resulting in …
SCOTUS Extends FAA Exemption to Last-Mile Drivers: What the Flowers Foods decision means for motor carriers and transportation providers
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, expanding reach of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) Section 1 exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. The Court held that a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for Section 1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do. This decision has significant implications for motor carriers and transportation providers that rely on arbitration agreements to resolve disputes with independent contractors and employee drivers.