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
Customs Duty Assists: Regulatory Compliance Overview and FAQ
Customs compliance and enforcement defense are high-profile exercises within U.S.-based importers due to the higher-risk regulatory enforcement environment. One of the more complex hot topics facing compliance and legal professionals within importers of record (IORs) is the degree to which “assists” impact dutiable value, and therefore duty burden, in the eyes of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
TSA Authorized Representatives—Emerging Practice of Engaging Freight Brokers and Its Practical Implications
Air transportation safety has long been of critical supply chain importance and geopolitical significance, and that role is growing. Supply chain constraints over this decade have driven a need for adaptation, modal diversification and cost containment. To do so, authorized air cargo providers have increasingly explored new ways to add capacity for regulated surface transportation.
Chameleon Carriers—FMCSA’s “Reincarnated” Rule and Enforcement
As the U.S. DOT and its FMCSA ramp up certain elements of domestic enforcement, regulators are utilizing existing laws and regulations that previously were not often invoked. Enforcement of the English language proficiency requirement is one great example.
What’s Old Is New Again: Broker Liability Insulation from the Case Law in the Post-Montgomery Era
The Supreme Court has spoken in its Montgomery v. Caribe Transport decision, and the brokerage sector, and even shipper and motor carriers, are working toward adapting to this “new liability regime.”