## Facts

- Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) employed Lane D. Sinele for many years as a sales manager in its sweeteners division, where he accessed internal customer, pricing, and volume information.
- Sinele signed multiple confidentiality/nondisclosure agreements during his employment but did not sign any noncompetition or nonsolicitation agreement.
- ADM stored customer and pricing information in internal systems, including a database called “Tableau,” which ADM treated as confidential and a trade secret.
- The corn-sweetener market was volatile; ADM’s customer and pricing data changed frequently and had limited value for predicting future market conditions.
- After retiring, Sinele formed LS Ag Link, LLC, a consulting/brokerage business that advised buyers of corn sweeteners in negotiations with ADM and competitors.
- ADM alleged that Sinele’s new work would inevitably require use or disclosure of ADM’s trade secrets, even absent intentional misuse.
- ADM did not present evidence that Sinele had actually used or disclosed ADM trade secrets after leaving.

## Issues

1. Whether ADM showed a sufficient likelihood of success on an Illinois Trade Secrets Act (ITSA) misappropriation claim, based on “inevitable disclosure,” to support a preliminary injunction.
2. Whether a preliminary injunction restricting Sinele from soliciting certain ADM customers and from disclosing trade secrets was proper without evidence of actual or threatened misappropriation and without any noncompete or nonsolicitation agreement.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded.
- The court held ADM failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its ITSA claim under an inevitable-disclosure theory.
- The court concluded ADM’s showing of likely misappropriation was conjectural and insufficient for preliminary injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires, among other elements, a protectable right and a showing (at least) of a likelihood of success on the merits.
- Under ITSA, a plaintiff must show actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret; inevitable disclosure may support threatened misappropriation only with specific, fact-based proof that misuse is likely.
- Inevitable disclosure is not established merely because a former employee had access to confidential information and later works in the same industry; courts assess whether the new role makes use of the particular trade secrets effectively unavoidable.
- An employee may use general skill, knowledge, and industry experience gained during employment; trade-secret law does not convert such know-how or customer relationships into exclusive employer property absent misuse of protectable secrets.
- Courts are reluctant to impose noncompete-like restraints through trade-secret injunctions when the employer did not obtain contractual noncompetition or nonsolicitation limits.

## Conclusion

The appellate court vacated the preliminary injunction because ADM did not provide concrete evidence that Sinele’s post-retirement consulting work would likely misappropriate ADM trade secrets; the asserted “inevitable disclosure” rested on speculation, particularly given rapidly changing market and pricing information and the absence of any bargained-for noncompete restrictions.


Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Sinele, 2019 IL App (4th) 180714 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)