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 here.
Read the ADOTAT 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 here.
Read the Campaign US article here.
Read the Campaign Asia article here.
Read the Campaign India article here.
Read the Campaign Canada article here.
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 article here.
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.
Texas Lawyer: Lawyers Fight Each Other, Clients in $10M Fee Dispute
January 9, 2026 — Texas Lawyer reports that a high-profile trade secrets case that produced jury verdicts totaling more than $300 million has now turned into a high-stakes fight between lawyers and former clients.
According to the January 9, 2026, article, Brewer client Williams Simons & Landis (WSL) has filed a federal lawsuit seeking more than $10 million in unpaid legal fees. Texas Lawyer reports that WSL helped secure a $115 million jury verdict against Walmart in April 2021. WSL "then helped keep the case going through a retrial, which led to a $223 million verdict in May 2025. The case settled in August 2025, but the settlement amount has not been made public," the article states.
The defendants include the firm’s former clients — RiskOn International, Ecoark Holdings, Zest Labs Holdings, and related entities — as well as San Francisco law firm Bartko Pavia, which served as lead counsel during the retrial.
WSL alleges that after benefiting from years of trial and appellate work, the defendants conspired to avoid paying contractually owed contingent fees and expenses. William A. Brewer III, Brewer partner and lead counsel for WSL, described the situation as extraordinary in comments to Texas Lawyer.
“For the client now to try to avoid paying for the work that was done over five years ago by my client, that’s an extraordinary injustice,” said Brewer. “No lawyer, particularly trial lawyers, who's developed and tried the case and prevailed substantially, likes to be put in the position where you have to sue your client to get paid. That's what's happened here.”
In addition to fees tied to the Walmart recovery, WSL says it is owed approximately $300,000 for work on a separate lawsuit against Deloitte Consulting. As reported, “Williams Simons & Landis is seeking a jury trial, attorney fees, court costs, and an order requiring the defendants to provide a full accounting of settlement proceeds, litigation recoveries, and fund transfers related to the Walmart case. The firm is also seeking exemplary and punitive damages for what it calls the defendants' ‘willful, malicious, fraudulent and tortious conduct’ – plus any other legal or equitable relief the court might award.”
“Everybody should be popping champagne and enjoying a fight well fought,” Brewer said. “Instead, they’re trying to get away with not paying their bill.”
Reuters and Law360 Report on Brewer Client's Lawsuit for Unpaid Legal Fees
January 9, 2026 — Reuters and Law360 today report that Brewer client Williams Simons & Landis PC (WSL) is "suing a group of its former clients, saying they breached a representation contract by failing to pay more than $11 million owed to the firm after a successful trade secrets suit against Walmart," the Law360 report states.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, names RiskOn International, its predecessor Ecoark Inc., Zest Labs Holdings, and law firm Bartko Pavia LLP as defendants.
As reported, WSL alleges it was retained under written engagement agreements to prosecute high-stakes trade-secret litigation against Walmart on a hybrid and contingent-fee basis. In 2021, WSL secured a staggering $115 million jury verdict. According to the complaint, WSL also built the litigation record that later supported a retrial verdict of approximately $223 million and culminated in an August 2025 confidential settlement.
The Law 360 report states, "Despite these victories, and the eventual settlement, triggering the contingency fee agreements, WSL said that its former clients refused to pay for its work and instead fabricated negligence claims to justify the non-payment."
"Williams Simons & Landis delivered extraordinary results in the Walmart litigation — and the firm's advocacy was the foundation for two jury verdicts totaling more than $325 million," said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to WSL. "The record reflects that a retrial was ordered so additional evidence could be considered. The retrial relied on the same trial record WSL developed and resulted in an even larger verdict. This dispute isn't about performance; it's about payment."
Reuters reports that Zest Labs subsequently filed a separate lawsuit on January 8, 2026, against WSL in state court in connection with the Walmart litigation.
Brewer told Reuters that WSL delivered "extraordinary results" in the Walmart case and that Zest's lawsuit was "nothing more than an attempt to deflect from paying our client."
Law 360 Reports on Emerging Developments Involving Lake Law Firm, Brewer Client Sylvia Benito
December 5, 2025 – Law 360 reports today that following allegations by multiple creditors that the firm suffered from significant mismanagement — and just one week after creditors initiated involuntary Chapter 7 proceedings against it — the Law Offices of Edward J. Lake (the Lake Law Firm) in New York filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
In October, Brewer client Syliva Benito filed state court claims alleging Lake defrauded her out of more than $2.5 million by inducing her to loan the firm money under the guise of bridge financing and improperly mislabeling her investment in ERTC claims as loan.
In commenting on today’s developments, William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to petitioning creditor Benito, stated:
“Lake Law’s responsive December 3 bankruptcy filing—which seeks to use creditor-advanced funds for payroll and a $30,000 monthly salary to Ed Lake—underscores the purpose of the involuntary bankruptcy filing. As the bankruptcy court noted, Lake Law’s filing is ‘the functional equivalent of an admission that relief is warranted.’ We look forward to the appointment of a trustee to ensure an orderly and equitable distribution to creditors.”
The matter now proceeds toward a December 9 hearing, where the court will evaluate whether the Chapter 11 case should continue and whether an interim trustee will be appointed to oversee the firm’s assets.
The Independent Reports on Brewer Client Gregg Jarrett’s Lawsuit Against Vigliano Associates
November 26, 2025 – The Independent reports today on a new lawsuit filed by noted author Gregg Jarrett against his former literary agent, Vigliano Associates. Jarrett filed suit in New York State Court on November 25, 2025, against David Vigliano and Vigliano Associates Ltd., alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and contract in their handling of his literary earnings.
According to the report, the lawsuit – filed by Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors – claims the agency failed to provide a full accounting of royalties and later issued an unexplained payment into Jarrett’s account without documentation or justification.
As The Independent notes: “The complaint notes that, while previous payments from Vigliano Associates — run by founder David Vigliano — typically included details of any payments the agency had previously sent to Jarrett. This would generally accompany the deposit and document the title of the book or project associated with the payment, as well as the commission retained by Vigliano.”
The complaint further states: “Although Jarrett requested nothing more than a simple accounting, Defendants expressly refused the request. In response, Defendants sent a two-sentence letter stating that the Deposit represented unspecified ‘royalties’ for ‘prior matters’ and, if Jarrett sought further information, he would have to obtain it through formal legal discovery.”
The article also references an earlier, still-pending case in which Jarrett alleges that his agents conspired with Simon & Schuster to misappropriate a book concept he developed – claims that likewise center on breaches of loyalty and conflicts of interest within the publishing industry.
“Our client trusted his agents to act with loyalty, candor, and care,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel for Mr. Jarrett. “Instead, they have flatly refused to account for funds under their control. The refusal to provide any information regarding Mr. Jarrett’s accounts requires this filing.”
Brewer added, “Of course, literary agents occupy a position of trust that demands loyalty. If an agent acts as Mr. Vigliano allegedly acted here, it undermines the integrity of the industry.”
Read more here: Fox News star sues estranged literary agent over ‘mystery’ royalty payments | The Independent