Los Angeles Times: Brewer Files Suit Against WPP on Behalf of Former CEO Alleging Whistleblower Retaliation and Wrongful Termination
November 12, 2025 – The Los Angeles Times reports today that Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors has filed suit on behalf of the former CEO of WPP’s GroupM, Richard Foster. The lawsuit alleges that WPP terminated Foster after years of internal whistleblowing over the company’s alleged misuse of client rebate ad revenue, a practice Foster claims amounted to a kickback scheme amassing between $1.5 billion to $2 billion.
Foster, the producer behind “Love Island” and other reality TV shows, raised repeated concerns with senior executives about the legality and ethics of WPP’s rebate handling. In December, he submitted a 35-page internal report warning of the potential risks the rebates could pose to the company.
In January, Foster was asked to discuss the report with Brian Lesser, global CEO of GroupM. Lesser expressed concerns and claimed he would investigate further. However, days later, Foster claims he received a text from Lesser requesting a sanitized version of the report, one scrubbed of any criticism of GroupM.
Despite Foster’s 17-year tenure, WPP executives chose not to confront his claims. Rather, he claims they marginalized him and ultimately, on July 10th, terminated him.
“Richard Foster devoted nearly two decades to helping build one of the world’s most successful media and entertainment creation operations,” said lead counsel William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. “When he stood up for transparency and accountability at WPP, he was let go. This case will shine a light on systemic misconduct and the retaliation faced by an executive who refused to go along to get along.”
The complaint alleges violations of whistleblower protections statutes seeking $100 million in damages.
Read More
Bloomberg Law: Brewer Client Richard Solit Files Suit Alleging Fraud and Breach of Contract Against New York Attorney
October 28, 2025 – Bloomberg Law reports that Dr. Richard Solit, an experienced investor, filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, against New York attorney Edward J. Lake and his firm, The Law Office of Edward J. Lake, P.C. d/b/a The Lake Law Firm. The suit alleges a pattern of misconduct related to a mass-torts litigation finance venture.
The suit alleges that Lake induced certain entities that Dr. Solit was affiliated with to invest $1 million in a mass-tort portfolio and $4.25 million in an Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERC) portfolio by falsely presenting themselves as experts in the field and later, making grandiose promises to secure additional funding. The suit further alleges that Lake and his firm failed to deliver the promised case portfolios and later attempted to address the shortfalls through replacement agreements that were never fulfilled.
According to the filing, Lake further represented that his firm was in financial distress, and requested that Dr. Solit provide $950,000 in loans to keep the firm operational. Dr. Solit alleges that it only recently became clear that defendants never intended to repay these loans and did not do so.
“Dr. Solit is pursuing justice after discovering that Ed Lake and his firm misused investment funds and his confidence in an attorney was exploited,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. “Dr. Solit intends to ensure that those responsible are held to account under the law.”
The complaint asserts that Lake’s actions violated his contractual and fiduciary duties, undermining the standards of integrity expected of those entrusted to manage client and investor funds.
Read more here.
Law360 and American Lawyer: Brewer Client Sylvia Benito Files Suit Alleging Fraud and Contract Breaches by New York Attorney
October 21st, 2025 – Law360 and American Lawyer report that a lawsuit filed in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, details what the complaint describes as a series of schemes by attorney Edward J. Lake and his firm, The Law Office of Edward J. Lake, P.C. d/b/a The Lake Law Firm, to mislead investors and misuse millions in litigation-finance funds.
Filed on behalf of Sylvia Benito, a Florida-based investment professional, the suit alleges that defendants cultivated investor confidence through claims of guaranteed returns and proprietary case-acquisition models in the mass-torts litigation finance space. According to the complaint, those assurances masked a pattern of financial misconduct, including the diversion of investor funds and the use of new investments to pay off prior obligations.
The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive trust. Benito seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as disgorgement of profits allegedly earned through her investments.
According to the filing, Benito and her associates invested more than $15 million with Lake Law. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to deliver on the case portfolios promised and later induced Benito to provide additional funding under false pretenses, including loans totaling more than $1 million that were never repaid.
The lawsuit also alleges that Benito personally invested $1.5 million to acquire Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERC) claims, only to discover that Lake instead purchased those claims for himself while characterizing her investment as a loan. The complaint contends that this deprived her of any potential return and reflected a broader pattern of deception.
“Our client seeks to hold a lawyer accountable for betraying the trust of investors and misusing their money under the guise of legal expertise,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. “Ms. Benito seeks justice for herself and the many others who were deceived by false promises and fraudulent guarantees.”
According to the filing, Lake’s actions not only violated his contractual obligations but also abused the position of trust he held with investors, who relied on his representations of expertise and integrity. The complaint calls for compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and the imposition of a constructive trust over assets belonging to Lake and his firm.
Brewer Client Wholesale Payments Secures Injunction in First Wave of Texas Business Court Trade Secret Cases
September 12, 2025 — Wholesale Payments, a Texas-based financial services firm, secured a Temporary Injunction today from the newly expanded Texas Business Court. The order of the Court for the Eighth Division enjoins the defendants — all former insiders at Wholesale Payments – from diverting merchant accounts. The high-stakes case is among the first heard under the Business Court’s new jurisdiction over trade secret disputes.
Originally filed August 18, 2025, in the 96th Judicial District of Tarrant County, the lawsuit accuses former independent sales partners of breaching Portfolio Purchase Agreements — deals worth over $1 million meant to safeguard client portfolios and relationships. In breach of those agreements, the defendants allegedly conspired to launch Goal Line Payments, LLC, a direct competitor based in Collin County, Texas. Wholesale Payments seeks more than $10 million in damages, disgorgement, and permanent injunctive relief.
“This is an important development because those entrusted with a company’s clients owe a duty of loyalty that cannot be abandoned for personal gain,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel for Wholesale Payments. “Our client believes defendants executed a deliberate scheme to raid its workforce and misappropriate its trade secrets.”
On September 2, 2025, the case was removed to the Texas Business Court. The court’s expanded jurisdiction, effective just one day earlier under House Bill 40, now includes trade secret disputes. Created in 2023, the Business Court system handles high-dollar commercial litigation with speed, consistency, and subject-matter expertise.
Brewer added, “We moved quickly to obtain protection in the Texas Business Court. Its expanding jurisdiction is well-suited for complex trade secret disputes.”
Founded in 2006, Wholesale Payments is a Texas-grown leader in electronic payment processing. It operates nationwide with more than 80 employees and a sales agent network exceeding 300.
According to the complaint, Goal Line Payments, LLC was launched while the defendants remained bound by restrictive covenants and confidentiality agreements. The suit asserts claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and conspiracy under Texas law.
Wholesale Payments is also pursuing related claims in Florida. A separate lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that Merchant Lynx Services and several of its executives orchestrated a corporate raid by luring Wholesale Payments’ employees, diverting clients, and misusing confidential business information to fuel a competing operation.
Brewer Client Former CFO Files Suit Alleging Corporate Valuation Fraud by CBIZ/Marcum and AmeriTex Leadership
July 1, 2025 – A high-stakes lawsuit filed yesterday in federal district court sheds light on how manipulated valuation reports can distort financial outcomes and erode trust across capital markets.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, the case of former AmeriTex CFO Christopher Podlasek v. CBIZ Inc., CBIZ MAG LLC (NYSE:CBZ; formerly Marcum LLP) exposes how valuations can be used to whitewash unsavory business practices.
At the heart of this suit is an accusation that Marcum knowingly produced a backdated valuation report to justify significantly undercutting the value of Podlasek’s equity in AmeriTex — a major infrastructure supplier whose rapid rise was engineered, in large part, by his leadership. As valuation professionals, CBIZ and its predecessors are specifically charged with upholding fair valuation practices that underpin both private and public markets.
According to the complaint, “Independent valuations act as the surrogate for arm’s length negotiation in our economy. When that process is corrupted, it undermines the very confidence that underpins our financial markets. This case is not about a difference of opinion. It is about betrayal of duty, distortion of fact, and the failure of a firm that claims to stand for integrity. The public interest demands accountability.”
Podlasek’s legal counsel, William A. Brewer III of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, states: “When a firm like Marcum abandons that responsibility, it undermines the credibility of every arms-length transaction across public and private markets.”
With trillions in public-market assets relying on accurate valuations, each flawed report chips away at investor confidence.
The complaint alleges that Marcum, under pressure from AmeriTex leadership, rubber-stamped financial projections that violated appraisal standards — ultimately valuing the company at $789 million despite earlier internal estimates of up to $3 billion.
Brewer adds, “This case carries significant implications beyond the parties involved. It highlights broader concerns about the integrity of valuation services in private equity, public infrastructure, and capital markets at large.”
This case urges regulators, investors, and industry participants to insist on the highest standards of professional integrity.
Brewer Firm Announces that Virginia Supreme Court Sides with NRA in High-Stakes Contract Dispute, Rejects Expansion of State Contract Law
New York, New York — May 30, 2025 – In a widely watched contract clash, the Supreme Court of Virginia has delivered a decisive victory for the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) in its dispute with Under Wild Skies, Inc. (UWS).
UWS was the producer of the hunting show Under Wild Skies, which the NRA sponsored for over two decades. The dispute arose after UWS claimed NRA repudiated the contracts and sued for over $20 million. The ruling cements the NRA’s trial win over UWS and affirms longstanding principles of contractual interpretation in the Commonwealth.
The case centered around a failed television sponsorship relationship between the NRA and UWS, which for 26 years produced a hunting-focused show under the same name.
UWS alleged that the NRA’s 2019 request for business information about the success of the show – amidst an internal compliance review (and its subsequent delay in making a scheduled payment) – constituted an anticipatory breach of their agreement. UWS attempted to bolster its case by urging the trial court to instruct the jury on the “doctrine of adequate assurance,” which allows a party to demand confirmation of performance if they suspect the other side might default.
In a decision dated May 29, 2025, the trial court rejected the instruction, the Court of Appeals upheld that decision, and the Supreme Court now affirmed it – definitively stating that the doctrine of adequate assurance is not recognized under Virginia common law. The high court emphasized that the doctrine – originally rooted in the Uniform Commercial Code and later extended in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts – represents a “modern innovation” not adopted by Virginia courts or legislators for general contract disputes.
Writing for the Court, Justice Cleo E. Powell declared that any expansion of Virginia’s contract doctrine is a matter for the legislature not the judiciary. “The decision to adopt a new doctrine applicable to all contractual disputes is a policy decision that is more appropriately left to the legislature,” she wrote.
The ruling has broader implications beyond this case, reaffirming that Virginia courts will not judicially adopt evolving doctrines from other jurisdictions without express legislative direction. It also protects entities like the NRA from facing new legal standards retroactively applied in civil litigation.
“We are pleased the Court affirmed the outcome below,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at the Brewer firm, which represented the NRA in this matter and others through fall 2024.
Last year, the NRA prevailed at trial in a “dissolution lawsuit” brought by the New York Attorney General, and secured a unanimous, 9-0 decision before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases in the country.
The Court’s refusal to expand the law ensures that contractual obligations in Virginia will continue to be interpreted under traditional principles of clear repudiation and actual breach.
Joining Brewer in representing the NRA were firm partner William A. Brewer IV and Robert H. Cox of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP in Virginia.
New York Law Journal / Albany Times Union Report on Lawsuit Against Former NRA President Oliver North
May 21, 2025 — The New York Law Journal and Albany Times Union report that Brewer client Thomas King, president of the NRA Foundation, has filed a countersuit against former NRA Board President Oliver North. The suit "cites New York’s anti-SLAPP statute that protects New Yorkers from frivolous lawsuits meant to silence whistleblowers."
Filed in the state Supreme Court of Rensselaer County on May 19, 2025, King's lawsuit says he reported "allegations of serious ethics violations by North through the NRA's confidential internal disciplinary process," the Law Journal reports.
”Our client believes Col. North's action in Virginia is a clear abuse of our judicial process — a classic SLAPP lawsuit filed to punish Mr. King for exercising protected rights,” said Svetlana Eisenberg, partner at Brewer and counsel to King. “Thomas King's actions were entirely lawful, rooted in responsible governance and accountability. The lawsuit aims to demonstrate that attempts to suppress whistleblowers through retaliatory litigation violate New York law and threaten the essential principles of transparency and integrity within nonprofit organizations."
To read the Albany Times Union article, click here.
To read the New York Law Journal article, click here.
Actress Cindy Latch Battles Unauthorized Image Exploitation in Florida Lawsuit
Latch Seeks to Protect Her Brand After Years of Misappropriation by Biote-Affiliated Clinics
April 4, 2025 – Cindy Latch, a commercial actress and TV host, has filed a lawsuit and request for temporary injunction alleging that 19 Florida-based medical clinics unlawfully exploited her image and likeness for commercial gain — years after her consent was withdrawn.
In a story that highlights the increasingly urgent battle over image rights in the digital age, Latch asserts that her likeness was used without permission to promote Biote medical products and services. Biote is a leading hormone therapy company for whom Latch worked as a commercial actress.
Despite a strict contractual agreement dating back to 2015 limiting usage rights to paid terms, the complaint reveals numerous Biote-affiliated providers continued to use her image well beyond the expiration of her contract in February 2021.
Filed on April 2, 2025, in the 13th Judicial Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, near Tampa Bay, Florida, Latch’s complaint outlines a pattern of persistent infringement even after repeated demands to cease use, a court-issued temporary restraining order, and a temporary injunction issued by the 101st District Court of Dallas County.
As of today, at least 7 of the named clinics allegedly continue to display Latch’s likeness across their websites, social media platforms, and promotional videos – all for the benefit of their commercial interests.
“These defendants were told to stop, ordered to stop, and yet they continued to use our client's image,” said William A. Brewer III, founding partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel for Ms. Latch. “Our client believes that this is a textbook example of commercial misappropriation. These clinics and Biote capitalized on Ms. Latch’s brand equity and image to attract business while ignoring the law.”
At the heart of the dispute is Latch’s former collaboration with Biote Medical LLC. Under a series of "Image Usage Contracts," Biote had the right to use Latch’s promotional materials — but only so long as payments were timely and consent remained valid. According to the complaint, those contracts explicitly required that affiliates remove all content 30 days after payment stopped or authorization ended.
The lawsuit says that when Latch withdrew her consent in 2021 and Biote’s license expired, many affiliated providers ignored the termination and continued using her image. Despite receiving written instructions from Biote in September 2021 to remove the content — and a court-ordered injunction in December 2024 — numerous providers allegedly continued to refuse to comply. Latch filed suit against Biote Medical LLC in November 2024.
The most recent complaint cites violations of Florida’s unauthorized publication of name or likeness statute, common law invasion of privacy by misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. Latch seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages.
The clinics named in the suit span the state from Fort Lauderdale to Jacksonville to Sarasota and include some still actively using her image for their own profit on social media. Most only ceased after legal action was initiated.
“This isn’t just about me. It’s about drawing a clear line,” says Latch. “Professionals deserve control over how their image is used. If companies can ignore contracts and court orders without consequence, then no one’s brand is safe.”