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
D.C. Circuit Rejects DOE’s Use of Emergency Authority to Prevent Coal Plant Retirement
The D.C. Circuit vacated the Department of Energy’s order compelling continued operation of Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant under DOE’s emergency authority, finding that Section 202(c) is a narrow, last-resort power reserved for immediate grid-reliability emergencies, not longer-term resource planning.
New BIS “Affiliates Rule” Compliance Date is November 10 Unless Suspended by U.S.-China Truce
A new party screening requirement will soon impact compliance of international dealings unless the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Securities (“BIS”) issues a second extension of its effective date.
California’s New AI Law: What Legal Departments and Outside Counsel Need to Know
Newly enacted California Senate Bill 574 regulates how attorneys use generative AI by amending the California Code of Civil Procedure and requiring attorneys to personally verify every citation, whether sourced from AI or otherwise. It also holds law firms jointly responsible for sanctionable violations by their attorneys. The bill added a new section to the California Code of Civil Procedure (§ 1282.1), barring arbitrators from delegating their decision-making to generative AI.
Beyond Allulose: What Comes Next in Sugar-Related False Advertising Litigation?
The Franco decision has given plaintiffs a potential roadmap for challenging “Sugar Free,” “Zero Sugar” and similar claims when FDA guidance and existing regulations do not fully align.