(Reuters) – Keila Ravelo, the notorious onetime partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Hunton & Williams, spent nearly a decade advising her mainstay client MasterCard in a gigantic antitrust class action by retailers accusing MasterCard and Visa of conspiring to fix swipe fees for card users. She brought the case with her from Hunton to Willkie when she changed firms, and though she was not MasterCard’s lead lawyer in the case, she worked closely with MasterCard on managing the massive document production and management the litigation demanded. She also attended the mediation and negotiating sessions that culminated in final approval of a $5.7 billion class action settlement in December 2013. In many ways, that settlement was the capstone of Keila Ravelo’s legal career.
(Reuters) – We may never really understand why plaintiffs’ lawyer Gary Friedman of the Friedman Law Group sabotaged his own promising career by secretly disclosing a trove of privileged and confidential documents from his antitrust class action against American Express to Keila Ravelo, MasterCard’s counsel in a parallel class action against Visa and MasterCard. But thanks to filings Wednesday in the Amex case, we now know the breathtaking scope of Friedman’s improper disclosures, which Hofstra law professor Roy Simon described in an expert witness report as the most “repeated and serious violations” of professional duties that he can recall in 20 years of advising class counsel.
(Reuters) – Details emerged this week in one of the most inexplicable cases of improper lawyer conduct I’ve ever seen. We now know that Gary Friedman of the Friedman Law Group, an accomplished antitrust lawyer who co-led a long-running case for merchants suing American Express over supposedly inflated credit card fees, supplied proprietary information about retailers in his case, as well as a confidential expert witness report, to MasterCard lawyer Keila Ravelo, a onetime partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher who is facing federal criminal charges for allegedly defrauding the firm and her former client MasterCard.
(Reuters) – When I saw news Wednesday that Target had reached a $19 million settlement with MasterCard to reimburse issuers of MasterCard-branded cards for costs associated with Target’s gigantic 2013 data breach, I thought there was something strange about the announcement. Target has been embroiled in multidistrict litigation over the data breach since 2014, including consolidated class actions by financial institutions that claim to have spent billions of dollars to replace compromised cards and beef up customer service operations because of the data breach. Last December, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson of St. Paul, Minnesota, refused to dismiss the banks’ case.
Last Friday, when lawyers from three firms – Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Berger & Montague – asked to withdraw as counsel to the National Association of Convenience Stores in the proposed $7 billion antitrust class action settlement with Visa and MasterCard, they said that they only learned of NACS’s opposition to the deal right before the settlement was filed with U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn. That’s not what NACS’s new lawyers at Constantine Cannon said in a brief filed Tuesday night. If there was any doubt that there’s going to be a battle royal over this settlement, the new brief should remove it.