17577: On Blowback For WPP Whistleblower Lawsuit.

  

MediaPost reported WPP made good on its promise to refile an updated motion to dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit.

Corporations typically decline from openly discussing pending legal disputes, yet the updated motion—which WPP surely knew would undergo online examination by news outlets—presented the single White operating company an opportunity to take its argument to the court of public opinion.

WPP is seeking to seal an investigation by Sony Pictures alleging WPP Media—i.e., the former GroupM firm—engaged in global improprieties involving rebates.

The motion states, “The fact that Sony has never publicly disclosed this information, and Plaintiff’s refusal to name his source, strongly indicates that he obtained the information by improper means.”  

Um, doesn’t that fall under the definition of a whistleblower—to access insider information to expose wrongdoing?

In a court of law, sealing such data from the proceedings might be a legitimate tactic.

In the court of public opinion—and coming from a single White operating company boasting to be “the trusted growth partner for the world’s leading brands” and whose CEO consistently stresses the word trust—it’s just bad optics.

WPP Demands Court Seal Foster’s Sony Probe Details

By Steve McClellan

Last week former GroupM executive Richard Foster filed an amended complaint in his wrongful termination lawsuit against WPP that alleges he was dismissed illegally for exposing the company’s improper withholding and use of rebates that belonged to clients.  

In the amended complaint, filed in New York State Supreme Court, Foster detailed a separate (and up to that point not publicly disclosed) investigation by WPP client Sony Pictures that Foster said supported his own claims about the firm’s illicit handling of rebates. According to Foster, that probe found that in 2023 in China WPP returned approximately $110 million in rebates to clients while it wrongfully retained $350 million in discounts from sellers. Foster asserted that WPP engaged in similar practices in other countries. 

Yesterday WPP filed court papers demanding that all of Foster’s references to the Sony probe be sealed, arguing that the investigation was confidential and that Foster’s refusal to state how he obtained the report suggests that he may have done so illegally.  

“The fact that Sony has never publicly disclosed this information, and Plaintiff’s refusal to name his source, strongly indicates that he obtained the information by improper means,” WPP stated in its motion.  

The firm also cited a nondisclosure agreement that Foster had signed prohibiting him from disclosing confidential information related to his employment at the company. 

Foster’s amended complaint also alleged that executives within the company agreed with him that GroupM/WPP Media’s rebate policies were in some cases illegal and unsustainable. Those executives, per the complaint, included Nicola McCormick, general counsel at WPP, who previously was general counsel at GroupM.  

In its motion this week, WPP also demanded that references to conversations Foster had with McCormick as outlined in his complaint also be sealed.  

WPP argued that those discussions “are obviously protected by the attorney-client privilege. Even the most junior practitioner knows that that privilege belongs to Defendants; it was not Plaintiff’s to waive.” 

Nevertheless, WPP added, Foster “violated the privilege to prejudice and disadvantage Defendants in these proceedings. The addition of salacious, muckraking allegations and disclosure of highly sensitive and/or privileged information in the Amended Complaint cannot change the brutal truth: Plaintiff is not and never has been a whistleblower, and this entire lawsuit is nothing more than a disgruntled employee’s naked attempt to leverage an exorbitant payout.” Foster is seeking $100 million in damages. 

WPP said it would “address the deficiencies” in Foster’s amended complaint in a forthcoming motion to dismiss the case. 

“In the meantime,” WPP added, “Defendants’ and their clients’ privileged and confidential information remains on the public docket. This information must be sealed to prevent further prejudice to Defendants and harm to nonparties who have nothing to do with this Action.”