July 22, 2026  ·  Complaint filed July 16, 2026  ·  flsd, No. 0:26-cv-61961

By David Brunk, civil litigation attorney

Read the filing

Fourthane v. Tucker Alleges Coordinated Theft of Trade Secrets to Launch Rival

Trade Secret Misappropriation: The Core Allegation

Fourthane Engineering and Services Limitada, a Chilean LLC, and its U.S. subsidiary, Fourt Industrial Supplies, Inc. (FIS), a Nevada corporation with sales reach in over 50 countries, allege in a July 16, 2026 complaint that three former employees—Michael Tucker, Daniel Martin, and Will Evans—engaged in a coordinated scheme to misappropriate trade secrets and form a competing company while still employed by FIS.

The complaint alleges that Tucker, who served as FIS’s General Manager for 12 years from January 29, 2014 until his resignation on April 30, 2026, exported 4,535 FIS customer contacts from the company’s systems on March 18, 2026, followed by an additional 124 contacts. The complaint also alleges that Tucker shared confidential FIS business records externally in April 2026, including the "PRICE Worksheet 2026," "SPLICE MATERIAL PRICE CALCULATOR," "MiCS SALES SCHEDULE," a Fourt product presentation, and a Fourt company folder. On April 7, 2026, Tucker deleted numerous Fourt company documents, including corporate records, a business statement, and a balance sheet. "The coordinated departure of three key employees who used their positions of trust to misappropriate Fourt’s trade secrets" is how the complaint describes the alleged scheme (Compl. ¶1). The complaint further states that the defendants' actions included "the coordinated resignations in April and May 2026, the disclosure of Fourt’s confidential customer information..." (Compl. ¶86).

The complaint contends that these trade secrets—including chemical formulations, manufacturing processes, customer lists, pricing structures, and supplier sourcing—derive "independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by others" and were protected by reasonable measures, such as limited employee access and confidentiality agreements (Compl. ¶54).

On July 9, 2024, the complaint alleges, Tucker and Martin shipped FIS’s proprietary Red 85 and Red 92 repair kits to Forsch Polymer Corporation using FIS’s UPS account, without authorization. The kits were delivered to a recipient identified as "Dole" at Forsch Polymer Corporation on July 12, 2024 (Compl. ¶34). Tucker allegedly concealed the shipment email in his Trash folder and later blocked Fourt personnel on LinkedIn after his resignation (Compl. ¶36).

Evans, a former FIS Florida sales representative who resigned on May 17, 2026, is alleged to have forwarded FIS customer lists to his personal email on May 1, 2026, the day his resignation became effective. The complaint alleges that these customer lists constitute trade secrets under federal and state law (Compl. ¶44).

Breach of Contract: Restrictive Covenants Allegedly Violated

The complaint alleges that Tucker and Evans breached their employment agreements by soliciting FIS customers and employees for Integrity Innovations Group LLC (IIG), which markets products that "compete directly with Fourt’s," including a product presented to a FIS customer as a replacement for FIS’s flagship Red Line (Compl. ¶4).

Tucker’s employment agreement included a one-year non-solicit covenant, confidentiality, and non-disclosure provisions. The complaint alleges that Tucker breached his fiduciary duty by engaging in disloyal conduct while still employed, including using confidential information for personal gain (Compl. ¶77).

Evans’s employment agreement, signed on October 9, 2023, included an 18-month non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-recruitment covenant, as well as perpetual confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. The agreement stated that "a breach would cause irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief" (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges that Evans breached these terms by competing with FIS during the restricted period, soliciting customers and suppliers, and using and disclosing confidential information (Compl. ¶73).

The restraints in both agreements are described as reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests under Fla. Stat. § 542.335 (Compl. ¶67).

Fiduciary Duty and Allegations of Disloyalty

The complaint alleges that Tucker, Martin, and Evans owed duties of loyalty and fiduciary duties not to compete or misappropriate trade secrets while employed by FIS (Compl. ¶31). Specifically, Tucker, as FIS’s General Manager, owed a fiduciary duty to the company and breached that duty through disloyal conduct, including using confidential information for personal gain and soliciting FIS customers and employees for IIG (Compl. ¶76-77).

Tortious Interference: Harm to Business Relationships

The complaint further alleges that all defendants engaged in tortious interference with FIS’s business relationships, targeting customers such as QBM, Davidson Sales and Engineering, Frontline, and ICBS. The complaint alleges that Frontline notified FIS it would no longer purchase from the company due to "changes in administration," while ICBS informed FIS it was purchasing Tucker’s products to replace FIS’s Red Line (Compl. ¶49-50). The complaint contends that the defendants "intentionally and without justification interfered with these relationships by improper means," including the misappropriation of trade secrets and breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties (Compl. ¶82).

Civil Conspiracy: Alleged Coordination Among Defendants

The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to misappropriate FIS’s trade secrets and launch IIG. The complaint describes the defendants’ actions as agreeing to commit unlawful acts, including breach of fiduciary duties and tortious interference, and committing overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, such as organizing a competing company, coordinating resignations, and soliciting FIS customers (Compl. ¶85).

Tucker and Martin began organizing IIG while still employed by FIS, with Martin submitting his written resignation on April 13, 2026, the same day IIG was formed in Georgia (Georgia Control No. 26088098). Tucker announced his resignation to the FIS team on April 21, 2026, and his resignation became effective on April 30, 2026. Evans resigned on May 17, 2026, after forwarding FIS customer lists to his personal email. The complaint alleges that Tucker blocked FIS personnel on LinkedIn after his resignation and promoted TEAM Innovative Solutions, IIG’s d/b/a (Compl. ¶36, 38). IIG subsequently registered in Arizona on May 15, 2026 (Arizona Business ID 25064945).

The complaint alleges that on June 17, 2026, Tucker and TEAM Innovative Solutions arranged a meeting with Marcor Industrial and Davidson Sales and Engineering, a FIS customer. The complaint contends that IIG’s rapid development of competing products could only have been achieved through the misappropriation of FIS’s trade secrets (Compl. ¶47).

The complaint asserts the following causes of action:

• Count I: Misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq., against all defendants (Compl. ¶57-58).
• Count II: Misappropriation of trade secrets under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. § 688.001 et seq., against all defendants (Compl. ¶54-58).
• Count III: Breach of contract under the Tucker Agreement, against Tucker (Compl. ¶66-68).
• Count IV: Breach of contract under the Evans Agreement, against Evans (Compl. ¶72-73).
• Count V: Breach of fiduciary duty, against Tucker, Martin, and Evans (Compl. ¶76-77).
• Count VI: Tortious interference with business relationships, against all defendants (Compl. ¶80-82).
• Count VII: Civil conspiracy, against all defendants (Compl. ¶85-86).

Relief Sought: Injunctions, Damages, and Fees

The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from:

• Using or disclosing FIS’s trade secrets.
• Violating the terms of the Tucker Agreement, Evans Agreement, or other restrictive covenants.
• Selling products developed using misappropriated trade secrets.

The plaintiffs also seek actual damages, exemplary damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(C) and Fla. Stat. § 688.004(2), disgorgement of compensation paid to the defendants during periods of disloyalty, and attorneys’ fees and costs under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D), Fla. Stat. §§ 688.005 and 542.335, and the employment agreements. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ misappropriation was "willful and malicious," entitling the plaintiffs to exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees (Compl. ¶58).

The complaint demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.

David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.