METALAST HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

 

Founded in December 1994, Metalast International, LLC (MILLC) was a "green" metal finishing technology company that provided its customers with a wide range of R&D, technical support services, process control computers and more than one hundred (100) metal finishing specialty chemicals serving the aluminum anodizing and corrosion control industry. Its founder and MILLC manager for 20 years (1993 to 2013) was David M. Semas (Semas), Chairman of Metalast International, Inc. (MII), incorporated in May 1994.

​

Beginning in 2004 MILLC became a licensee of the United States Naval Air System Command (NAVAIR) and was one (1) of only three (3) companies licensed to commercialize Navy TCP (Trivalent Chromium Process). Navy TCP is a patented environmentally friendly chromate conversion coating technology developed to replace hexavalent chromium (Chrome 6), a known carcinogen made famous in the movie "Erin Brockovich.”​​  

 

In 2006 MILLC entered into a manufacturing and sub-licensing agreement with Chemetall US (Chemetall), a business unit of one of the world's largest global and well-respected chemical conglomerates, BASF for the production and commercialization of its Navy TCP licensed product line formulated and marketed under the METALAST® TCP-HF (hex free) brand.​​​

​

"METALAST® is a USPTO registered trademark owned exclusively by Semas since 1996. Under a federal court approved settlement agreement in March 2015, Chemeon Surface Technology, LLC, (Chemeon) and no other Chemeon distributor, nor any person or company has been licensed or authorized to use, reference, or describe any product or formulation as “formerly METALAST®.” Any such representation is unauthorized and may constitute trademark infringement or false designation of origin.

 

U.S. FEDERAL COURT ADJUDICATION

​

In February 2021, the United States District Court, for the District of Nevada issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ruling in favor of Semas on the breach-of-contract and trademark infringement issues, recognizing his ownership of the METALAST® trademark, name and brand and enforcing the settlement restrictions prohibiting unauthorized commercial use of the METALAST® name after June 10, 2015.

​

In June 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld those rulings, but remanded a separate trademark cancellation issue to the District Court for further explanation of its determination that Chemeon lacked standing to seek cancellation. Following further review, the District Court reaffirmed that Chemeon lacked standing and entered final judgment in February 2023.

​

Chemeon appealed that remaining cancellation issue. In May 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court determination that Chemeon lacked standing, bringing the remaining appellate proceeding to enclose.

 

Where unauthorized use or misrepresentation of the METALAST® trademark or product brand identity involves Department of Defense procurement, NAVAIR Qualified Product List (QPL) certifications, defense contractors, aerospace, and aircraft manufacturers, or other QPL or MIL-SPEC federally regulated supply chains, the legal implications may extend beyond trademark infringement and civil liability.

​

NAVAIR QPL CHEMEON AUTHORIZATION

 

A separate and potentially more consequential issue arose on August 21, 2015. Despite the settlement restrictions that had taken effect on June 10, 2015 NAVAIR officials were provided information indicating that Chemeon was authorized to use the METALAST name. Under that assumption NAVAIR approved a product designation identifying the Chemeon chemical as “Chemeon TCP-HF (formerly METALAST®).” Chemeon's co-owner Dean Meiling's apparent failure to disclose to NAVAIR officials the existence in terms of a federal court-approved settlement expressly prohibiting the continued commercial use of the METALAST® brand "in any fashion or matter whatsoever" raises serious questions concerning potential federal procurement fraud by Chemeon, Chemetall and it's other manufacturers and distributors.

​

This distinction was significant because the Navy's Qualified Products List (QPL) is mandatory and related qualification records would have required at least two years of retesting and likely an additional two years to re-certify, manufactured, specifications and approvals. This would’ve allowed their Navy TCP competitors, Henkel and SurTec direct  access to their customers. The prestigious QPL certification is relied upon by military procurement authorities, aircraft and aerospace manufacturers, defense contractors, and metal-finishing facilities to identify products approved under applicable specifications.​

 

Describing Chemeon's chemical as “formerly METALAST®” created the misleading impression that the successor company had lawfully succeeded to the original METALAST® brand, trademark rights, and associated commercial identity. The Meilings only acquired the assets of the former METALAST International, LLC (MILLC) and not the company itself. The courts established the Meiling's did not have roots dating to 1995 and were never "METALAST," the MILLC company, nor the tested, specified or approved and Semas owned Metalast brand. That unlawful designation enabled Chemeon and its manufacturing and distribution partner, Chemetall to retain the commercial and financial benefits of previously established product qualifications without undergoing the potentially lengthy and expensive process associated with qualifying a newly identified product.​

​

The central concern is that a NAVAIR Qualified Products List (QPL) designation continued to identify Chemeon's products as “formerly METALAST®,” notwithstanding a federal court-mediated and subsequently court-approved settlement agreement entered into more than four months earlier. As part of those proceedings, Dean and Madylon Meiling, together with their company, Chemeon, agreed to the settlement's terms and conditions, with the Meilings affirming under oath before a federal judge their obligation to comply. The settlement expressly prohibited continued commercial use of the METALAST® trademark, name, and brand “in any fashion or manner whatsoever.” The subsequent use of the “formerly METALAST®” designation raises serious questions concerning compliance with those sworn commitments, as well as Chemetall's role in the marketing, sale, and distribution of Chemeon chemical products bearing that identification.

 

CHEMETALL - FORMAL NOTICE

 

Within weeks of NAVAIR's August 21, 2015 authorization of the “formerly METALAST®” designation, senior Chemetall executives received formal written notice demanding the immediate cessation of all unauthorized references to the METALAST® trademark, name, and brand, including its use on product labels, invoices, technical data sheets, marketing materials, and other commercial documentation.

​

On September 3, 2015, legal counsel acting for Semas issued a formal cease-and-desist letter to senior executives of Chemetall, advising them of the federal court-approved settlement restrictions and demanding that the unauthorized trademark use cease immediately. Additional document demands and subpoenas followed during 2015 and 2016, which Semas maintains went unanswered. According to Semas, Chemetall continued using the unauthorized “formerly METALAST®” designation in connection with the marketing, sale, and distribution of Chemeon chemical products despite receiving formal notice of the settlement restrictions.

​

To this day, Semas and his legal counsel remain perplexed by Chemetall's failure to respond to the formal cease-and-desist notice. Semas found it particularly difficult to comprehend why a business unit of a highly respected global chemical company such as BASF would neither acknowledge nor respond to correspondence identifying a federal court-approved settlement expressly prohibiting continued commercial use of the METALAST® name “in any fashion or manner whatsoever.”

 

Although the “formerly METALAST®” reference was subsequently removed from the Navy's Qualified Products List (QPL) in 2019, Semas is unaware of any formal public announcement, customer notification, or industry-wide correction acknowledging that Chemeon was never METALAST®, was never its authorized successor, and had no authorization to use the METALAST® trademark.

 

To this day, Semas continues to receive reports from longstanding industry associates that the Meilings have represented themselves as the rightful owners of the METALAST® trademarks and have portrayed Semas as having improperly transferred those trademarks to himself. These reported representations stand in contrast to Semas's documented trademark ownership and the federal court proceedings addressing those rights. Semas believes that the absence of a formal public correction has allowed these misconceptions to persist throughout the metal-finishing industry, potentially influencing customers, manufacturers, aircraft, aerospace and defense contractors, military procurement personnel, and others who may continue to believe that Chemeon was formerly METALAST® or that the Meilings were the rightful trademark owners.

​

The effects of that unauthorized identification continue potentially leaving all Chemeon and Chemetall customers, and all those affected by this intentional and unlawful mislabeling with the mistaken impression that Chemeon was formerly METALAST®. Removing the designation from government qualification records did not correct the earlier identification in customer records, manufacturer specifications, purchasing documentation, or the broader industry's understanding of the product's historical identity.

​

CORPORATE CONDUCT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

​

This alleged conduct raises questions concerning product identification, trademark rights, representations to customers, and the accuracy of information relied upon within the military and aerospace supply chains. According to a Navy qualification letter issued nearly 4 years later, the Navy's QPL qualification records continued to identify the product using the “formerly METALAST®” wording until a product-name change removing the "formerly METALAST®" reference was reflected in records dated April 17, 2019.​

​​

Any ultimate determination of civil or criminal liability would depend upon a thorough examination of the documentary evidence, the applicable federal statutes and regulations, and the findings of the U.S. Department of Justice, other appropriate federal regulatory or investigative authorities, or courts of competent jurisdiction. Such an examination could encompass potential violations of federal procurement laws, the False Claims Act, trademark protections, securities disclosure requirements, and other laws governing fraudulent representations and concealment of material facts.

 

Particular attention will likely be given to what senior corporate executives knew, when they became aware of the restrictions imposed by the federal court-approved settlement, what actions they subsequently authorized or permitted, and whether material information was knowingly withheld from government purchasers, aircraft, aerospace and defense contractors, customers, shareholders, or prospective purchasers of the business. The fundamental issue is whether the documented conduct represents an isolated commercial dispute or what appears to be a sustained, financially motivated course of conduct and misrepresentation and concealment with broader consequences for the government, its customers, the industry, and the public.

​

POTENTIAL FEDERAL VIOLATIONS

​

The extensive documentary record presented raises serious questions concerning representations made to NAVAIR officials, government agencies, defense contractors, and commercial customers regarding the authorization to use the federally registered METALAST® trademark, name, and brand following the 2015 federal court-approved settlement and subsequent judicial proceedings. Although the supporting evidence includes court records, deposition testimony, transcripts, government qualification documents, correspondence, and other materials, the existence of this evidence should not be construed as establishing that any individual or company has committed a criminal offense or incurred civil liability.

 

The matters described herein were the subject of a review initiated through the Office of the Naval Inspector General in 2025 and were subsequently referred to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., (DOJ) for independent review and consideration in 2026. The referral included extensive documentary evidence concerning the unauthorized use of the METALAST® trademark, representations associated with Navy Qualified Products List (QPL) certifications, and potential implications for federal procurement. Any determination concerning further investigation, civil enforcement, or criminal proceedings remains exclusively within the jurisdiction of the appropriate federal authorities.

 

The DOJ alone, acting through the appropriate authorities, will determine whether further investigation or civil or criminal enforcement is warranted. Depending on the facts established and applicable legal requirements, potentially relevant federal statutes may include major fraud against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1031), false statements or concealment of material facts (18 U.S.C. § 1001), criminal false claims (18 U.S.C. § 287), the civil False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371). These statutes are identified solely as potential areas of legal consideration, not as allegations that their elements have been established or that charges have been filed. No representation is made concerning the existence, scope, status, or eventual outcome of any nonpublic government investigation.

 

TRUTH, TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

​

All individuals and entities are entitled to the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings and to applicable legal protections in civil matters. The purpose of this publication is to present the documentary record, identify matters warranting independent examination, and allow the appropriate authorities to determine the facts and whether any enforcement action is justified. No particular outcome is presumed or sought beyond a fair and impartial application of the law. Ultimately, the evidence, the law, and the independent judgment of the appropriate authorities must prevail.

 

While this publication appropriately distinguishes allegations of potential wrongdoing from established legal findings, Semas maintains that the documentary evidence supporting the underlying historical facts is overwhelming and compelling. That record includes sworn deposition and courtroom testimony, certified transcripts of federal court proceedings, judicial findings and orders, certified correspondence accompanied by signed return receipts, and the Navy's August 21, 2015 Qualified Products List (QPL) authorization letter addressed directly to Dean Meiling.

 

Taken together, these contemporaneous records provide a substantial, independently verifiable account of the events, the settlement restrictions, the formal notices provided to the parties involved, and the subsequent use of the METALAST® name. Although questions concerning intent, materiality, and potential civil or criminal liability remain for the appropriate authorities to determine, the documented historical record speaks for itself and warrants full public disclosure and independent examination.

 

For Semas, the objective has always been about more than protecting the Metalast trademark or preserving the history of the company he founded. It is about truth, transparency, and public disclosure—establishing an accurate and complete account of what actually occurred, why occurred, and how it was allowed to continue. Equally important is ensuring that government agencies, defense contractors, manufacturers, customers, the industry and the broader public have access to the material facts necessary to understand the circumstances and draw their own informed conclusions.

​

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PACKAGE

 

Qualified investigative journalists seeking to independently examine and verify the information presented on this website may request a confidential PDF documentary evidence package containing 22 separately identified exhibits. These materials include federal court orders, appellate decisions, trademark records, government, qualification documents, correspondence, deposition, testimony, and other supporting records relevant to the matters described above. 

 

To request the documentary evidence package please email; david.semas@gmail.com with your name, professional title, news, organization, or affiliation, city and state, and email address. Upon review of the request, arrangements can be made to provide the PDF package directly.

​

COMPREHENSIVE HISTORICAL AND INVESTIGATIVE MATERIALS

 

​The password-protected sections below contain substantially more extensive historical information, detailed analysis, and supporting documentation. Access to these materials is reserved for investigative journalists who have reviewed the initial documentary evidence and have determined that they wish to pursue a more comprehensive investigation or in-depth news story.

 

The purpose of this two-stage processes is to provide journalists with the essential documentary evidence necessary for an initial independent assessment, without requiring them to navigate hundreds of pages of additional material before determining whether further investigation is warranted.

​