Mastercard continues to wage its battle to nullify a $2.8 million verdict after a jury found the credit card giant had wrongly converted a letter of credit the day after terminating its contract.
The jury awarded the company, International Card Co., the full amount of the draw down, finding that Mastercard had intentionally and inappropriately made the conversion. In a series of motions filed in the Southern District before Judge Lorna Schofield by Mastercard's counsel, led by Ballard Spahr partner Jay Fastow, the credit card company seeks a motion of judgment as a matter of law, arguing that ICC failed to show that the draw down sum didn't reflect monies owed to Mastercard.
The jury also found that ICC had breached its contract with Mastercard, even as it declined to assign damages to the verdict. This, however, is validation that Mastercard was justified in its actions over potential outstanding merchant claims and as much as $4 million in exposure from "risks" associated with ICC, the card company argued.
"Not only did ICC lack the information necessary to carry its burden of proof, but it expressly admitted its conversion claim away conceding that it had substantial amounts due and payable to Mastercard merchants at the time of the draw down," Mastercard stated in a May 10 brief. It later argued that, by ICC's own admission, some 20 percent of its merchants were late in receiving payments during the relevant time period.
In its response, ICC, represented by a Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney team led by partner Fredric Newman, argues that Mastercard fails to reach the burden of the Rule 50(b) appeal, arguing first that the "engaged and thoughtful" jury had "ample evidence to support its verdict."
In a June 14 filing, the Jordan-based financial services company accused Mastercard of trying to "flip the script" in which party bears the burden of proof on damages, arguing that "unlike a breach of contract, damage is not an element of a conversion claim," and that the jury was instructed to award less if it so wished.
In its most recent filing Wednesday, Mastercard said that, despite its arguments, the financial firm "presented no direct evidence that the draw down exceeded the amount it owed merchants, let alone by how much," which the credit card company said backs up its claims that it had good reason to draw the claim down after cancelling the contract. The company also argued that "of course" damages are part of conversion claims, pointing to jury instructions that it said showed this to be the case.
No future hearing dates on the motion have been set.