Former Congressman Mark Green is now at the center of a civil lawsuit that claims he helped spin confidential business intelligence from one energy venture into a competing play in Guyana. Court papers filed this week accuse Green, lobbyist Marc C. Hebert and the law firm Jones Walker LLP of using inside information to chase a fuel exchange agreement in the South American nation.
The plaintiffs, Curlew Midstream LLC and Playera Group Global LLC, say Green and Hebert gained access to Playera’s confidential competitive data, then turned around and used it for their own benefit. According to the complaint, the pair tried to secure the same Guyana fuel deal through a company they co-founded after Green left Congress.
As detailed by the Nashville Banner, the suit alleges that following an April meeting with the plaintiffs, Green and Hebert formed a Florida entity called Prosimos and immediately began pursuing the Guyana transaction. The filing says they leaned on Playera’s proprietary commercial information while negotiating with Guyanese officials and local partners in an effort to land the fuel swap for themselves.
Florida business records show that PROSIMOS LLC was registered on June 23, 2025, with Marc C. Hebert listed as registered agent and Mark Green as an authorized member. Those details appear in the Florida Division of Corporations record for the company, which lists a Miami principal address and a New Orleans mailing address for Hebert.
What the Complaint Says
According to the lawsuit, Curlew and Playera initially negotiated a fuel exchange arrangement directly with Guyanese officials. That deal, the plaintiffs say, suddenly shifted in mid January when last minute changes introduced an unnamed consultant into the process. The complaint alleges Green traveled to Guyana that same month and that shortly afterward he and Hebert used confidential information from Playera to undercut or duplicate the opportunity through Prosimos.
The plaintiffs contend that proprietary commercial data they shared in confidence ended up arming a direct competitor. They are asking the court for damages and other relief tied to what they describe as the improper use of trade information in the Guyana bid.
Green’s Post Congress Work and Ties
Green stepped down from Congress in July 2025 after previously serving as chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. WRAL reported that Green said he was leaving to pursue a private sector opportunity, and the lawsuit now alleges that his post congressional business efforts included work tied to Guyana.
Jones Walker LLP, the law firm associated with Hebert, is named as a co defendant in the case alongside Green and Hebert. The complaint links the firm to the alleged conduct through Hebert’s role, although it will ultimately be up to the court to sort out who, if anyone, bears legal responsibility.
Why Guyana Matters
Guyana’s offshore oil boom has turned the country into a hot destination for energy players looking to supply fuel and midstream services. That surge has made logistics and fuel supply agreements particularly valuable in Georgetown and across the region, as new production strains existing infrastructure and creates demand for outside help.
Local and international coverage has traced how rising oil output is pulling in foreign vendors and contractors. Stabroek News and other outlets report that Guyana’s expanding production has increased the need for imported fuel and services, a backdrop that helps explain why the contested contract in this lawsuit could be worth fighting over.
Legal Implications
At its core, the case turns on allegations that confidential commercial information was misused in a way that violated trade secret and related business conduct rules. If the facts line up with the legal standards, that kind of claim can support civil remedies under state trade secret law and, in some situations, under federal law as well.
A Congressional Research Service overview notes that the Defend Trade Secrets Act and similar statutes allow private parties to seek injunctions and damages when information qualifies as a trade secret and is acquired or used improperly. Whether Curlew and Playera can keep their case alive through early motions will depend on how convincingly they can show that they owned protectable information, took reasonable steps to keep it secret and that the defendants obtained or used it without authorization.
What Happens Next
The lawsuit is still in its early stages, and as of the initial reporting the defendants had not yet filed a public response. The case will likely move next into a round of written responses from Green, Hebert and Jones Walker, followed by scheduling orders from the judge that set deadlines for motions and discovery.
For now, Curlew and Playera are asking the court to compensate them for alleged competitive harm and to impose whatever other relief the judge sees fit. Filings in the case and any public statements from the parties are expected to shed more light as the dispute makes its way through the courts.
