When has a law firm simply gone too far in light of the times we’re living in? One Biglaw firm may be ready to teach a masterclass on just that.
For the past three years, Tinder’s cofounder and a group of its early employees have been locked in litigation with IAC/InterActiveCorp. and Match Group Inc. over the dating app’s valuation. But this is not your average corporate suit: it centers on the alleged cover-up of a sexual assault investigation against a former CEO to keep him in power long enough to manipulate and suppress the company’s valuation.
Wachtell Lipton — a firm that came in 41st place in the most recent Am Law 100 ranking, with a 2020 gross revenue of $1,010,664,000 — has represented Match on the reportedly faulty Tinder valuation, on the alleged “sham” sexual assault investigation, on the company’s spin from IAC, and now on this suit. The firm recently attempted to seal documents related to the sexual assault allegations against former CEO Greg Blatt, a former Wachtell associate himself. But the Wachtell ties don’t end there. The company’s CFO is a Wachtell alumnus, as is one of its board members, who worked there for decades as a former partner. Wachtell now seems to be trying its hardest to conceal information in this suit, but why?
Gen AI: Your Legal Research Assistant, Not Your Replacement
Here's how you can spend more time practicing law, and less time sorting, sifting, and summarizing.
Rosette Pambakian, a former Tinder vice president, accused Blatt of “forcibly groping [her] breasts and upper thighs” during a 2016 holiday party. Two others were present in the hotel room where this happened, and according to court documents, what one of them saw occur between Pambakian and Blatt was “not consensual.” Blatt has since filed a defamation case against Pambakian, claiming that the incident in question was indeed consensual. The instant suit alleges that Match whitewashed the sexual assault investigation to keep Blatt at the head of the table while working on the valuation.
As noted in a recent filing from Gibson Dunn, the firm that is representing the plaintiffs in this $2 billion suit, not only is access to court documents a First Amendment issue, but transparency is even more important when matters involving allegations of sexual assault are at play.
“There is simply no valid basis for denying public access to these court records, particularly in light of the substantial public interest this case has already generated. Sealing is an extraordinary act in derogation of the statutory and common-law rights of public access to court proceedings. It is not a weapon to be wielded as a means of seizing a strategic advantage through selective disclosures aimed at winning a public relations campaign. Defendants should not be allowed to sweep under the rug evidence that they swept Blatt’s misconduct under the rug. The #metoo era has highlighted the importance of transparency and the need to expose, rather than conceal, credible allegations of sexual assault. This is especially so in this case, where the jury can find that the investigation cover-up was designed to facilitate the corruption of the Tinder valuation that Blatt was leading in parallel with the Blatt investigation. This Court should reject Defendants’ effort to enlist its help in perpetuating their cover-up by keeping the filings in its own docket shielded from public scrutiny.”
Not only is Match willing to take a huge #MeToo bullet here, but Wachtell is as well for its aggressive defense of the company. By insinuating that Pambakian is a liar, and then by attempting to conceal almost all of the documents concerning the sexual assault investigation, they are failing women entirely. Whatever happened to “believe women”? We reached out to Wachtell for comment, but the firm did not immediately respond.
The Fifth-Year Dilemma: Do I Stay Or Do I Go (In-House)?
How to make the right decision, and why there might be another way to shape a fulfilling legal career on your own terms.
Gibson Dunn partner Greta B. Williams, who is representing the plaintiffs alongside partner Orin Snyder, said, “It is unfortunate in 2021 that a public company would stoop so low in attacking the victim. Now they are trying to cover up their cover up by keeping evidence about it hidden from the public.”
With law student activism on the rise — for example, against law firms that use mandatory arbitration agreements in employment and against law firms that represent fossil fuel companies — it wouldn’t be terribly surprising if these student groups turned an eye toward firms that are willing to represent companies that show such disdain to victims of sexual assault.
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.