Brewer Secures Injunction for Wholesale Payments in Fight Against Trade Secret Theft
LUBBOCK, TEXAS — August 19, 2026 — Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors secured a preliminary injunction on behalf of Wholesale Payments, Inc. (“WPI”), a Texas-based payments company, in its trade-secret action against ClearPay Processing, LLC (“ClearPay”). The order bars ClearPay from using WPI’s confidential merchant information to solicit identified WPI merchants, marking a major victory in WPI’s ongoing campaign to protect its enterprise from corporate espionage.
U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas found that WPI is likely to succeed on its claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The Court also denied the defendants’ challenge to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the case pending Credit Wholesale Company, Inc. v. ClearPay Processing, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00177-H (N.D. Tex. Lubbock Division).
The federal injunction is an important milestone in WPI’s broader, multi-front campaign to dismantle "shadow pipelines" built by rogue former agents and rival processors. Over the past year, WPI has taken aggressive action to stop former contractors from breaching their agreements and funneling millions of dollars into the coffers of WPI’s competitors.
This latest ruling reinforces a central theme of WPI's case: competitors who attempt to act as corporate safehouses for rogue agents and smuggled trade secrets will be held strictly accountable.
“This ruling sends a clear message that former agents who steal protected merchant information will be pursued,” said Counsel for WPI William A. Brewer III. “The Court correctly recognized that trade secret theft causes irreparable injury and took decisive action to protect our client’s interests.”
WPI is represented by lead counsel William A. Brewer III alongside partner Joshua Harris and associates Valerie Evans, Jordon Smith, and Amir Saada.
Digiday, MediaPost Examine Evidence in Foster Amended Complaint
Coverage of Richard Foster's amended complaint continued at Digiday and MediaPost. Foster, the former CEO of WPP's Motion Content Group, alleges that WPP improperly retained value generated by clients' advertising spend. The amended complaint further alleges that Sony Group Corporation, one of WPP's largest clients, launched an independent investigation into those practices.
Digiday reported on what it described as WPP's stalled turnaround, detailing former executives' accounts of "the transformation that never was," due to organizational problems and major client departures. Digiday connected those accounts to the new allegations surrounding Sony's investigation.
MediaPost dug into the evidence cited in Foster's amended complaint, including the financial records, internal emails, and WPP tracking documents allegedly presented by Sony — highlighting the complaint's allegations that WPP representatives had "no answer to give" when confronted with "black box" rebates funding media discounts.
The amended complaint in Foster v. WPP was filed on August 13, 2026 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Index No. 659721/2025). Lead counsel for Foster is William A. Brewer III, a partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors.
Read the Digiday article on new court filings and WPP's stalled turnaround.
Read the MediaPost article on Foster's amended complaint and Sony's investigation.
AdWeek and ADOTAT Examine Sony's Investigation, Alleged Fraud Evidence, and WPP's Investor Messaging
AdWeek analyzed the new claims in an amended complaint filed on behalf of former WPP executive Richard Foster, focusing on the complaint's allegations regarding an independent Sony investigation of WPP's rebate practices and alleged evidence of fraud. The outlet later wrote that the case "reawakens age-old debates in Adland" surrounding principal media arrangements, rebates, and agency-client transparency.
ADOTAT also examined Sony's investigation, highlighting the complaint's allegation that WPP's general counsel described the potential exposure as "existential."
In a related piece published the next day, the outlet examined the widening gap between WPP's investor messaging and its internal reality, noting CEO Cindy Rose's previous descriptions of the company as having "lost its way" and being "very complicated" stood in stark contrast to WPP's earlier promise of a "radically simpler" WPP Media — which the outlet called "the plaintiffs' best evidence."
The amended complaint was filed on August 13, 2026. The case, Foster v. WPP, remains pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Index No. 659721/2025). Richard Foster is represented by William A. Brewer III of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors.
Read the AdWeek article on Sony's investigation and alleged rebate fraud.
Read the ADOTAT article on WPP Media's strategy and investor messaging.
Industry Analysts and International Press Weigh In on Foster Filing and the Breakdown of Agency-Client Trust
Trade analysts and international outlets reported on Richard Foster's amended complaint, filed August 13, 2026. Foster, the former CEO of WPP's Motion Content Group, alleges wrongful termination after reporting the company's alleged misuses of client rebate ad revenue. The amended filing alleges that Sony Group Corporation, one of WPP's largest clients, launched an independent investigation into WPP's rebate practices, raising concerns similar to Foster's.
Media Leader broke down seven key takeaways from the latest filing, quoting Nick Manning, an industry veteran and expert witness for the plaintiff, who called it "the most revealing" look at the "inner wiring" of the industry.
More About Advertising's Omar Oakes examined the complaint's account of what happened when Sony "stopped trusting WPP," using the alleged retention of 76% of Sony's China rebate funds to explore the deeper breakdown of trust between agencies and their clients.
MediaCat, in Turkish, focused on the significance of the alleged Sony review.
The filing was also covered by Business Insider, EMARKETER, Marketing Magazine Asia, and Adformatie.
Foster v. WPP (Index No. 659721/2025) is before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. William A. Brewer III of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors is lead counsel for Richard Foster.
Read the Media Leader article here.
Read the More About Advertising article here.
Read the MediaCat article here.
Campaign's Global Network Reports on Foster Amended Complaint and Alleged $350 Million in Retained Rebates
An amended complaint filed by Richard Foster, former CEO of WPP's Motion Content Group, is drawing wide coverage in the advertising and business press. Reporting centers on Foster's termination, the alleged $350 million in retained rebates, and the complaint's allegations regarding a Sony Group Corporation investigation.
Campaign UK and its sister publications, Campaign US, Campaign Asia, Campaign India, and Campaign Canada reported on Foster's amended complaint. The complaint alleges that Sony, a WPP client, launched an investigation that found WPP retained $350 million in client rebates, including a "broker model that concealed the full value of rebates from clients."
Campaign Asia also questioned the implications for advertisers in a separate article, asking, "Is our CMO minding the store?"
Campaign UK reported on WPP's response to Foster's lawsuit, with WPP characterizing the case as a "naked attempt" to seek an "exorbitant payout."
The case, Foster v. WPP, is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Index No. 659721/2025). The amended complaint was filed on August 13, 2026.
Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors represents plaintiff Richard Foster. Firm partner William A. Brewer III is lead counsel.
Read the Campaign UK article on Foster's WPP lawsuit.
Read the Campaign US article on Foster's WPP lawsuit.
Read Campaign Asia's analysis of the WPP-Sony controversy.
Read Campaign India's report on Foster's amended complaint.
Read Campaign Canada's report on Foster's amended complaint.
Business Insider Reports Sony Investigation Found “Global Crime Scheme” Within Foster’s Whistleblower Amended Complaint v. WPP
NEW YORK – Business Insider reports that Sony commissioned an investigation into WPP’s media rebate practices and, according to a new filing in whistleblower Richard Foster’s lawsuit against WPP, concluded that the advertising giant operated a “global crime scheme” that improperly withheld millions in rebates from clients.
According to Foster’s amended complaint, Sony presented WPP with its investigative findings in 2025. The Sony presentation describes the practice in China and other markets as a “fraud scheme,”attributing its design to the same senior WPP executives identified in Foster's whistleblower reports. The Sony investigation allegedly draws on their review of a criminal trial involving WPP executives in China, interviews with former WPP and GroupM executives, and WPP’s own contractual, financial and tracking records.
A Sony slide titled “impact for WPP Advertisers – China 2024” claims approximately $110 million went back to clients that year, while $350 million remained in WPP’s rebate pool “for later utilization.”
Sony’s report provides significant support for Foster’s allegations in his legal battle with WPP. Namely, that WPP’s media investment operation used clients’ collective advertising spend to generate rebates, routed those rebates through intermediary brokers, and retained a portion of the resulting value as profit rather than returning it to the clients whose spending generated it.
For Foster, Sony’s findings reinforce the various warnings he raised for years inside WPP – warnings he alleges the company answered by firing him when he refused to stay silent.
"Richard Foster asked a question any agency should be prepared to answer: Are your profits derived from loyal service to your clients, or not?" said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel to Foster. “When Mr. Foster concluded that Defendants did not have honest answers to that question, he informed the CEO — and was summarily fired."
Read the Business Insider article on Sony's investigation into WPP's alleged rebate practices.
First Amended Complaint Draws Striking Parallel From Foster’s Warnings to Sony’s Findings
Today, Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors filed a First Amended Complaint on behalf of Richard Foster, the former CEO of WPP's Motion Content Group, adding substantial detail to his whistleblower retaliation claims and the evidence available to WPP which confirms his internal reports to senior officers. An independent investigation by Sony corroborates Foster’s claims regarding WPP’s improper rebate practices and the identity of the senior executives protecting them.
Foster spent years documenting the problem – and the executives behind it. WPP’s rebate practices were not the work of rogue actors, but a systemic operation built and protected at the highest levels. Both Mark Patterson, Global President of Markets and Business Operations for WPP Media, and Andrew Meaden, Global Chief Investment Officer for WPP Media, were identified by Foster as executives perpetrating WPP’s rebate model. Foster repeatedly warned leadership regarding how WPP improperly retains value generated by clients’ advertising spend. The amended complaint further alleges that these senior executives did not merely tolerate the practices, but condoned, supervised, and mandated them.
Foster put those warnings in writing and gave them to Brian Lesser in confidence. In December 2024, Foster delivered Lesser a confidential 35-page report, titled “Project Claridges.” There, he documented his calculations that GroupM improperly derived nearly $1 billion annually from “rebate deals,” and proposed solutions for reform. He also identified Mark Patterson and Andrew Meaden in the report.
Lesser shared Foster’s report to the very executive it explicitly implicated. Lesser revealed Project Claridges to Mark Patterson – the very executive Foster identified as an architect of the improper rebate practices. Within days of receiving Project Claridges, Patterson was elevated to a position directly above Foster: putting the executive Foster identified in direct control of the channels through which he could work, speak, and be heard.Foster was thenprogressively pushed aside, excluded from meetings, stripped of responsibilities, marginalized within WPP.
Executives fire Foster “without cause.” In the aftermath of Patterson receiving Foster’s report, Nicola McCormick, a senior legal officer at WPP, confirmed Foster’s fate at WPP: “sadly… you will not get what you need…” at GroupM now. Then, on July 10, 2025, Foster was fired “without cause.” WPP offered Foster a seven-figure termination package conditioned on his silence regarding the company’s rebate practices. He refused.
Then, Sony independently uncovered the same executives and scheme. Sony Group Corporation – one of WPP’s largest clients – launched an independent investigation into WPP’s rebate practices and reached the same conclusions Foster raised internally and outlined within Project Claridges: that WPP is running a “global crime scheme.” Sony’s investigation uncovered WPP’s rebate practices and their continued use following the 2023 China probe, which involved a handful of executives who funneled approximately $176 million into their personal accounts, with one executive receiving a life sentence. Sony also discovered WPP’s rebate structures were then “re-engineered by Patterson and Meaden to ensure its ongoing operation,” to discreetly continue to profit off of the improper practice and evade detection.
Foster seeks $100 million in damages. The case, Foster v. WPP, is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Index No. 659721/2025).
Together, Project Claridges and Sony’s investigation tell the same story from opposite sides of the table. Foster’s amended complaint is the ultimate portrait of whistleblower retaliation inside a conspiracy to preserve an unlawful operation and the executives it implicated.
Another Lawsuit Against AJ Capital Affiliate Seeks Full $82.5 Million Debt on the Graduate by Hilton Roosevelt Island
NEW YORK, N.Y. – August 13, 2026 – Affiliates of commercial mortgage lender ACRES Capital sued the AJ Capital Partners entity that guaranteed the loan on the Graduate by Hilton Roosevelt Island on Wednesday, seeking the full outstanding debt of more than $82 million.
AMF Levered II, LLC and ACRES Real Estate SPE 10, LLC filed the complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, against Graduate Hotels Real Estate Fund III LP. Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and Steven E. Losquadro, P.C. represent the Plaintiffs.
This is the third lawsuit filed by the lender against the Graduate guarantor, including a prior lawsuit for the full amount of the debt based on AJ Capital Partners’ decision to shutter the hotel in November 2025 and a lawsuit based on the Graduate’s failure to fund a debt service reserve account that served as security for the loan.
The lender extended $69.5 million in September 2022, secured by a leasehold interest in the hotel.
On July 20, 2026 — two weeks after the Commercial Division denied its motion to dismiss a related enforcement action — Graduate Hotels Real Estate Fund III filed a counterclaim seeking damages from the lender. The complaint alleges that filing constitutes an "Interference Event" under Section 9.3(c)(v) of the Loan Agreement, which makes the debt full recourse when the guarantor asserts a non-compulsory counterclaim against the lender in an enforcement action arising from an event of default.
The complaint further alleges the guarantor irrevocably waived any right to assert a counterclaim of any nature with respect to its guaranty obligations.
The borrower defaulted on obligations including funding the debt service reserve account and the replacement reserve and reimbursing the lender's expenses. The lender accelerated the debt on October 10, 2025, and demanded payment in full on August 6, 2026. The guarantor has not paid. The debt totals no less than $82.5 million as of July 31, 2026, and continues to accrue interest at the default rate.
"The guarantor waived its right to assert any counterclaim, and then asserted one," said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel for Plaintiffs. "The loan agreement specifically addresses that conduct, and it makes the entire debt recourse."
The borrower closed the hotel in November 2025. In April 2026, Cornell University terminated the ground lease, and the Plaintiffs have a separate action pending in New York County seeking the same debt on independent grounds arising from that termination. The Plaintiffs do not seek double recovery and will credit any amount recovered in one action against the other.