Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. v. ADF Foods, Ltd.
- Ho
- 1:22-cv-02655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
Ascot Valley Foods v. ADF Foods (USA): Judge Ho entered judgment finding trade-secret misappropriation, awarding ADF damages, and rejecting ADF’s contract liability.
Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. must pay ADF Foods (USA), Ltd. the stated net award, additional damages for specified 2026 sales, and applicable interest; the judgment also imposes a permanent injunction and rejects ADF’s asserted contractual liability.
What happened
In Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. v. ADF Foods (USA), Ltd., the court held after a bench trial that Ascot misappropriated ADF’s trade secrets in violation of federal and New York law. The misappropriation involved meatless meatballs made with ADF’s trade secrets and sold to customers other than ADF.
The court awarded ADF $2,298,114 in damages for profits from 2020 through 2025, plus $498,359.14 in prejudgment interest through June 30, 2026, and additional daily interest through judgment. After subtracting $143,055.57 awarded to Ascot for unpaid invoices and interest, ADF’s net award was $2,661,052.91. The court also ordered a permanent injunction and required further calculations for profits from sales in 2026.
Judge Dale E. Ho ruled that ADF did not breach the parties’ agreement by failing to order a minimum number of cases and was not liable for promissory estoppel or for breach of contract involving custom materials and packaging. The court also awarded ADF post-judgment interest and directed the parties to address the additional 2026 damages.
The detailed version
- Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. v. ADF Foods, Ltd. · No. 1:22-cv-02655
- Ho
- July 15, 2026
Background
The case was tried to the court without a jury on April 6, April 7, and June 25, 2026. The court had previously issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). The judgment addresses claims and counterclaims between Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. (Ascot) and ADF Foods (USA), Ltd. (ADF).
Trade-secret ruling and damages
The court found that Ascot misappropriated ADF’s trade secrets in violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and New York law. The judgment awards ADF disgorgement damages—profits taken from the party found responsible—for Ascot’s sales to customers other than ADF of meatless meatballs produced using ADF’s trade secrets from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2025.
The principal damages award for that period is $2,298,114. The court also awarded prejudgment simple interest at New York’s statutory rate of 9% per year. The interest totaled $498,359.14 through June 30, 2026, with an additional $566.64 per day through the date of judgment. The combined 2020–2025 award to ADF was $2,804,406.10.
Offset and final award
The court awarded Ascot $143,055.57 for unpaid invoices for goods sold, delivered, and accepted by ADF, including prejudgment interest. That amount was deducted from ADF’s award. The resulting net award to ADF was $2,661,052.91. ADF also received post-judgment interest on the net award beginning on the date the judgment was entered, calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Additional 2026 damages and injunction
The court awarded ADF additional disgorgement damages for profits Ascot made from sales of the meatless meatballs after December 31, 2025. Ascot was ordered to submit by July 17, 2026, a calculation of profits from sales between January 1 and July 10, 2026. Within seven days after that submission, ADF was directed to file a proposed supplemental judgment covering those profits and related prejudgment and post-judgment interest. The court also ordered that a permanent injunction be entered concurrently with the judgment.
ADF’s alleged contractual liability
The court ruled that ADF did not breach the July 29, 2015 Co-Pack Agreement by allegedly failing to order a minimum number of cases during the 2020–2021 term. The court further ruled that ADF was not liable for promissory estoppel or breach of contract concerning custom materials and packaging.
Disposition
The court adopted the proposed judgment’s form after concluding that prejudgment interest was mandatory and entered judgment reflecting the rulings above.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.