Latham Litigation Team Successfully Defends Endeavor Against Unsolicited Submission Claim
A Southern California-based Latham litigation team secured a significant win on summary judgment for global sports and entertainment company Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc. in a dispute with a plaintiff claiming to be responsible for the key ideas underpinning Endeavor’s US$10 billion initial public offering.
Plaintiff David Carde filed the case in March 2022, claiming he was the brains behind Endeavor’s 2021 IPO. His case was immediately reported widely in the industry press for both its novel twist on the “implied contract by unsolicited email” theory and its sensationalized complaint.
Carde claimed he sent an “analysis” of Endeavor’s financial position shortly before, and shortly after, its initial withdrawn IPO to an Endeavor executive and to a WME executive. Carde claimed Endeavor stole his idea that Endeavor’s “platform drives its network effects” — a concept that, in fact, had been embedded in Endeavor’s corporate messaging since at least 2015 — and that he thus deserved to share in Endeavor’s profits.
In August 2022, Latham successfully moved to dismiss Carde’s unjust enrichment claim and request for punitive damages. In December 2023, after extensive discovery, the court granted summary judgment on Carde’s remaining implied contract claim. The court found that Carde’s unsolicited submission did not create any agreement or mutual expectation of payment, and that speculation about what might have occurred outside of the written communications was insufficient to show a contract had been formed.
On appeal, Carde argued that California’s doctrine governing idea submissions in the entertainment industry supported his claim. The California Court of Appeal rejected that position and affirmed the trial court’s ruling on August 5, 2026. The court held that Carde had not shown he clearly conditioned his submission on an obligation to pay or otherwise communicated an expectation of compensation at the time he sent his analysis, and that he had not presented admissible evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact.
The decision reinforces that, under California law, sending unsolicited materials to a company does not, by itself, create an obligation to pay absent a clear and express understanding to that effect, and is significant given the trend of lawsuits claiming idea theft based on unsolicited submissions related to IPOs, mergers, and acquisitions.
The litigation team was led by partners Jessica Stebbins Bina, Marvin Putnam, and Michele Johnson and counsel Greg Swartz.