US-based Amcor Packaging Distribution is accusing Charles McHugh of plotting with his father and co-defendant William L McHugh to take confidential and proprietary customer marketing data valued at more than US$300,000, according to a report from Thomson Reuters.
In papers filed at the Orange County Superior Court, California, the company said Charles McHugh started working at Amcor in 1994 as a sales representative, reported Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property.
After performing well, McHugh was made a member of Amcor’s exclusive President Club, a reward given to the company’s elite 25 sales staff. He retained membership for a decade and his continued success meant he was promoted to vice president of sales, said the lawsuit.
Confidentiality agreement
Amcor said McHugh was bound by a confidentiality agreement for the entire period he was employed at the firm, which prohibited the disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential information about the company.
In 2009, it is alleged that McHugh approached a company official with a request to cut his income as he was considering divorce. Amcor said it refused to help the accused do this.
McHugh and his father are said to have started their own company shortly afterwards, called Value Added Packaging & Printing. Amcor claims that while McHugh was still employed at the company he “converted, stole, misused and misappropriated” property belong to, including confidential and proprietary client and marketing files.
The accused used the information as part of an attempt to solicit Amcor clients – an act that damaged the company’s business operations, the firm contends in the court papers.
The company has accused McHugh of deliberately steering its clients away from Amcor while leading them to believe they remained its customers.
Its customers were informed by McHugh that the completion of their ordered would be done through his father’s business – Value Added.
“He led Amcor's customers to believe that Value Added and another company were simply outside manufacturers that Amcor utilized to fulfil orders,” said the court papers. “Amcor customers were led to believe that their accounts continued to be serviced as Amcor accounts, even though the products were shipped directly from the manufacturer and the invoices were mailed by the manufacturer.”
