An interesting aside from Sovereign Bank v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 533 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2008), a complex business dispute discussed in my prior post.
Here’s the deposition testimony given by a Visa corporate representative, on which the Third Circuit relied in reversing summary judgment in favor of the Acquirer:
Q: [by Acquirer’s counsel] Is it fair to say that the operating regulations are not intended to benefit a single group of participants, but the Visa payment system as a whole?
A: [by Visa rep] It’s fair to say that the core purpose of the operating regulations is to set up the conditions for participation in the system, to set up rules and standards that apply to that ultimately for the benefit of the Visa payment system, the members that participate in it and other stakeholders such as cardholders, merchants and others who may participate in the system as well. (emphasis added).
Q: They may have some incidental benefit; is that correct?
Leading, and calls for a legal conclusion.
A: The bylaws and operating regulations, by their terms, apply only to members. So to the extent you mean they might have benefits beyond the rules that apply to other stakeholders, that’s correct. They’re not directly parties to these rules. (emphasis added)
Stop for one second and consider: these questions were asked by the Acquirer’s counsel. They were blatantly leading ("is it fair to say") and tried to get legal conclusions ("incidental benefit"), resulting in the Visa corporate representative rejecting their argument, providing fodder for the Third Circuit to overturn their summary judgment.
I don’t mean to question the tactical decisions of the Acquirer’s lawyers. Indeed, given the absence of other deposition excerpts in support of the Issuer’s argument, there seems to have been a reasonable basis for the Acquirer’s lawyer to think the Visa corporate representative was going to give them exactly what they wanted to hear.
But the representative did not, and instead gave the appellate court grounds to overturn summary judgment when, as mentioned above, it appears there was little other testimony favorable to the Issuer.
Just something to keep in mind: as tempting as the coup de grace may be, it rarely works as planned.