Movement Mortgage and Supreme Lending are ratcheting up their war of words ahead of a court hearing in a theft of trade secrets case.
The complaint filed earlier this month accuses a former Movement executive and other top performers of taking confidential data to Supreme in a monthslong exodus. The sides, in case filings, have raised accusations that border on criminal liability and question the corporate handling of sexual misconduct allegations, as they argue for a preliminary injunction.
The battle between the billion-dollar originators is the most recent such spar between industry leaders in recent years. Movement is asking the court to force Supreme to hand over and delete copies of sensitive information, while the competitor is denying any wrongdoing.
Attorneys for the sides declined to comment this week. They’re scheduled to appear before a Texas federal judge in an evidentiary hearing Aug. 5.
“Like corporate noir”
Movement accuses its former chief growth officer Sarah Middleton, who is not a named defendant, of facilitating departures to the rival between January and May. Staff allegedly took with them information including LO performance data from a Movement system known as DOMO.
“Supreme did not bother picking the lock,” wrote an attorney for Movement. “It simply bribed the guards, marched inside, and hauled the treasure out the front door. The plot reads like corporate noir.”
According to the complaint, Middleton was upset because she was passed over for a promotion to chief financial officer, and she complained to coworkers about the company. She departed to Supreme two months later in January and was followed by five staff members, including a Texas originator she coached who had stronger relationships with homebuilders. More employees flocked to Supreme, while Movement claims at least five others rebuffed recruitment efforts.
Movement claims it asked Supreme to return the laptops of 20 former employees but has only received eight, while Supreme contests all computers were returned. Counsel for Movement also wrote that the non-public borrower information is protected under the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act.
“Dissemination of such data without consent is not just a civil violation — it flirts with federal criminal liability,” wrote counsel for Movement in a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Supreme fires back at Movement
In an objection to the preliminary injunction, Supreme accuses Movement of filing the lawsuit to stop a hemorrhaging of employees leaving the company. It argues the plaintiff firm hasn’t shared evidence of a diverted loan or customer nor proof of a scheme to steal data.
Attorneys say two former LOs emailed themselves loan information before their departure solely to track if the mortgages closed within their post-departure compensation window. Other disputed data, according to Supreme, are simply personal worksheets employees used to track their own work.
As part of Supreme’s response, a filing from Middleton denied misappropriating trade secrets. She acknowledged frustration at the company, including over the promotion but it was rather over a president role (she was previously president of sales development and recruiting at Fairway Home Mortgage, as well as CEO of the Fairway Ignite coaching platform). The executive claims she never received promised bonuses or compensation for coaching, and was frustrated by what she perceived as a corporate environment heading in the wrong direction.
“Additionally, I witnessed a deterioration in Movement’s culture, including what appeared to me to be a course conduct and disrespect for women,” she wrote. “In addition to terminating a number of women executives and replacing them with men, I do not agree with how Movement handled allegations of sexual misconduct against women in the workplace.”
Neither Middleton nor Movement elaborated on those claims in their filings. Supreme also claims it offered to agree to a preliminary injunction, but Movement’s demands were unreasonable and overbroad.
“Movement doesn’t identify any evidence that gives rise to an inference that Supreme used the information to gain an unfair competitive advantage,” the motion read.
A federal judge Monday ordered the sides to try to discuss an agreement on a preliminary injunction ahead of a required joint status update due Thursday.
The South Carolina-based Movement generated $20.7 billion in loan volume last year and has over 1,900 sponsored originators, according to public databases. Dallas-based Supreme meanwhile counts over 700 sponsored LOs and produced over $4.7 billion in volume in 2024.
