July 26, 2026  ·  Complaint filed July 6, 2026  ·  ilnd, No. 1:26-cv-07886

Newman News, By David Brunk

Read the filing

PTPA v. Syed Alleges Ex-General Counsel Hijacked Governance to Control Antitrust Case

Mir’s Recruitment of Players to Form Rival Executive Committee

The complaint alleges that Wajid Mir, while serving as the Professional Tennis Players Association’s General Counsel and Executive Vice President for Player Engagement, secretly recruited players to sign "Executive Committee Member Acknowledgment" forms in an effort to install himself as the organization’s de facto leader. According to the filing, Mir knew or should have known that only the existing Executive Committee could appoint members under D.C. nonprofit law (Compl. ¶38). The complaint states that PTPA’s governance powers are expressly committed to the membership or Executive Committee under D.C. Code § 29-406.10(a) (Compl. ¶25).

The filing contends that Mir’s actions were unauthorized and beyond the scope of his authority. The complaint describes these actions as part of a broader scheme to seize control of PTPA’s governance and finances, including its ongoing antitrust litigation (Compl. ¶39).

Post-Termination Conduct: Impersonation and Disclosure of Privileged Information

The complaint states that Mir was terminated for "gross malfeasance" on June 3, 2026, by PTPA Executive Director Romain Rosenberg, with the decision ratified by the Executive Committee (Compl. ¶4). Following his termination, the filing alleges that Mir continued to hold himself out as PTPA’s General Counsel, retaining the law firm Clifford Chance US LLP to send demand letters in PTPA’s name (Compl. ¶52).

The complaint alleges that Mir disclosed privileged and confidential information for his own benefit, including details of PTPA’s antitrust litigation strategy. The filing states, "He has disclosed and used privileged and confidential information he obtained as counsel for his own benefit" (Compl. ¶5). During the Wimbledon Championships in July 2026, Mir allegedly held himself out as PTPA’s representative among players, agents, and officials, while disparaging PTPA, Winners Alliance, and their leadership. The complaint asserts that Mir’s actions caused a player to withdraw from serving as a player representative on the Executive Committee due to uncertainty (Compl. ¶60). The complaint also alleges that Mir created fake social media accounts to spread defamatory statements about PTPA and its leadership (Compl. ¶42). Mir disparaged PTPA, Winners Alliance, and former Executive Director Ahmad Nassar to players, claiming conflicts of interest and self-enrichment (Compl. ¶40). Mir also submitted an anonymous complaint against a PTPA contractor without disclosing his involvement (Compl. ¶41). Mir allegedly falsely claimed to player-ambassadors that Rosenberg was hiring biased counsel to conceal wrongdoing (Compl. ¶45).

Mir’s conduct extended to the disclosure of sensitive information related to PTPA’s antitrust lawsuit, Pospisil v. ATP Tour, Inc., which alleges unlawful suppression of player compensation. The complaint notes that Mir told PTPA’s antitrust counsel, Weil, to take direction from him, further impairing the organization’s ability to litigate effectively (Compl. ¶53). Additionally, Mir retained Stella Riberti of Clifford Chance, who sits on the appellate body of the Italian Tennis Federation—an alleged co-conspirator in the antitrust action—to send demands in PTPA’s name (Compl. ¶54). The complaint states that Mir’s actions have provided defendants in the antitrust case with leverage to seek PTPA’s dismissal, as evidenced by their arguments in court filings (Compl. ¶59).

Breach of Contract and Fiduciary Duties

The complaint alleges that Mir’s conduct violated his employment agreement with Winners Alliance, Inc., which prohibited the disclosure of confidential information and disparagement of the company or its affiliates. The agreement explicitly states that Mir would "not at any time make, publish, or communicate to any person or entity or in any public forum any defamatory or disparaging remarks, comments, or statements concerning the Company..." (Agreement § 7, Compl. ¶28). As PTPA’s General Counsel, Mir also owed fiduciary duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the organization, according to the complaint (Compl. ¶31).

The complaint sets forth multiple causes of action related to Mir’s alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Count II: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Attorney) alleges that Mir breached his duties of loyalty and confidentiality by disclosing privileged information and acting adversely to PTPA’s interests (PTPA v. Mir). The complaint states that Mir breached these duties "including by continuing to hold himself out as the PTPA’s General Counsel after his discharge; by purporting to act and to direct other counsel to act in the PTPA’s name; by interfering with the PTPA’s relationship with its litigation counsel..." (Compl. ¶72).

Count III: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Officer and Agent) alleges that Mir breached his fiduciary duties by disparaging PTPA’s leadership and disclosing confidential information (PTPA v. Mir). The complaint asserts that Mir’s actions constituted a breach of his duties as both an officer and agent of PTPA, including his efforts to undermine the organization’s governance and litigation strategy (Compl. ¶76).

The complaint also includes Count I: Ultra Vires (D.C. Code § 29-403.04(b)(2)), alleging that Mir’s actions, including holding himself out as PTPA’s General Counsel, directing counsel to act in PTPA’s name, and purporting to reconstitute the Executive Committee, were unauthorized and beyond the scope of any authority conferred on him (PTPA v. Mir). The complaint states, "His continuing acts, including holding himself out as the PTPA’s General Counsel and Executive Vice President, directing counsel to act in the PTPA’s name, instructing the PTPA’s litigation counsel, and purporting to reconstitute the Executive Committee, are unauthorized and beyond the scope of any authority conferred on him" (Compl. ¶66).

Additional Causes of Action: Unjust Enrichment, Tortious Interference, and More

The complaint sets forth several additional causes of action against Mir. Count V: Unjust Enrichment alleges that Mir retained benefits at the expense of PTPA and Winners Alliance, including compensation and access to confidential information, without providing lawful consideration (PTPA & Winners Alliance v. Mir). The complaint asserts that Mir’s retention of these benefits was unjust and entitles plaintiffs to restitution.

Tortious Interference with Contract is alleged against Mir for his recruitment of players to undermine PTPA’s governance and contractual relationships. The complaint contends that Mir’s actions interfered with PTPA’s relationships with its players, counsel, and other counterparties, causing harm to the organization (PTPA & Winners Alliance v. Mir).

The complaint also includes a claim for Unfair Competition, alleging that Mir misappropriated PTPA’s resources and confidential information for his personal gain. The filing asserts that Mir’s actions constituted unfair competition by exploiting PTPA’s proprietary information and relationships to advance his own interests (PTPA & Winners Alliance v. Mir).

*Violation of the D.C. Uniform Trade Secrets Act (D.C. Code §§ 36-401 et seq.)* is alleged based on Mir’s misuse of PTPA’s proprietary information. The complaint asserts that Mir disclosed and used trade secrets, including litigation strategies and confidential business information, in violation of the Act (PTPA & Winners Alliance v. Mir). The complaint notes that Mir’s actions have impaired PTPA’s ability to prosecute its antitrust lawsuit, which remains a critical component of the organization’s mission (Compl. ¶53, ¶59).

Count VI: Conversion alleges that Mir wrongfully retained PTPA and Winners Alliance’s property, including files, records, documents, and data, after his termination. The complaint states, "Mir has wrongfully retained Plaintiffs’ files, records, documents, and data, and has assumed unauthorized control and dominion over them" (Compl. ¶92). The complaint further asserts that plaintiffs have an immediate and superior right to possession of their property and seek its return (Compl. ¶91). The complaint emphasizes that Mir’s retention of these materials has caused ongoing harm to PTPA’s operations and legal strategy.

Impact on PTPA’s Antitrust Litigation

The complaint alleges that Mir’s actions have paralyzed PTPA’s ability to govern its affairs and prosecute its antitrust lawsuit, Pospisil v. ATP Tour, Inc., which alleges unlawful suppression of player compensation. The filing states that Mir’s conduct has created confusion among PTPA’s counsel and counterparties, impairing the organization’s ability to litigate effectively. The complaint asserts that Mir’s disclosure of privileged information, including PTPA’s antitrust litigation strategy, has provided defendants in the antitrust case with ammunition to seek PTPA’s dismissal. The filing states, "It is not clear how or if plaintiffs’ counsel can negotiate this conflict or discern from whom it must take direction on behalf of PTPA" (Antitrust Action, Dkt. 218, at 1, 3, Compl. ¶59).

The complaint alleges that Mir told PTPA’s antitrust counsel, Weil, to take direction from him, further impairing PTPA’s ability to prosecute the antitrust action (Compl. ¶53). The filing also notes that Mir retained Stella Riberti of Clifford Chance, who sits on the appellate body of the Italian Tennis Federation, an alleged co-conspirator in the antitrust action, to send demands in PTPA’s name (Compl. ¶54). The complaint states that Mir’s actions have caused irreparable harm to PTPA’s goodwill and relationships with players, counsel, and counterparties, including its ability to resolve or prosecute the antitrust action (Compl. ¶61).

Background and Timeline of Events

The complaint provides a detailed timeline of Mir’s employment and alleged misconduct. Winners Alliance, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hired Mir in 2022, and on December 6, 2022, Mir signed an Employee Obligations, Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Information Agreement with Winners Alliance. The agreement included provisions prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information and disparagement of the company or its affiliates (Compl. ¶28).

PTPA, a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the District of Columbia, was formed in 2023. Ahmad Nassar, then Executive Director of PTPA, appointed Mir as the organization’s General Counsel and Executive Vice President for Player Engagement. The PTPA Executive Committee, which included players Vasek Pospisil, Bethanie Mattek-Sands, Hubert Hurkacz, Ons Jabeur, and later Taylor Townsend, was responsible for governance under D.C. law (Compl. ¶23-25). The complaint notes that Pospisil continues to serve on the Executive Committee, and no successor has been duly elected or qualified to fill the vacancies (Compl. ¶23).

In March 2026, Nassar transitioned from PTPA Executive Director to Winners Alliance, and Romain Rosenberg was appointed as PTPA’s new Executive Director. Between March and May 2026, Mir recruited players to sign forms purporting to appoint them to PTPA’s Executive Committee, a power reserved for the existing committee under D.C. law (Compl. ¶37-38). The complaint states, "Mir set out to take the PTPA for himself" (Compl. ¶2).

On May 31, 2026, PTPA received a confidential demand letter from the counsel of Anastasia Skavronskaia, a former PTPA employee collaborating with Mir. On June 3, 2026, Rosenberg terminated Mir for gross malfeasance, and the Executive Committee ratified the decision. On June 4, 2026, Pospisil notified Mir of his termination, and PTPA revoked Mir’s access to its email, credit card, and payroll systems (Compl. ¶50).

Despite his termination, Mir continued to act as PTPA’s General Counsel, retaining Clifford Chance to send demand letters in PTPA’s name and disclosing privileged information. The complaint alleges that Mir’s actions during the Wimbledon Championships in July 2026, where he held himself out as PTPA’s representative, further exacerbated the harm to the organization (Compl. ¶56). The complaint states, "Everything Mir did, he did for his own benefit" (Compl. ¶3). On July 6, 2026, PTPA and Winners Alliance filed this complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case No 1:26-cv-07886. 1:26-cv-07886).

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Mir is no longer an officer, employee, agent, or attorney of PTPA and has no authority to act or speak for the organization. The complaint also requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to restrain Mir from:

• Holding himself out as PTPA’s representative;
• Using, disclosing, or threatening to use PTPA’s confidential or privileged information;
• Interfering with PTPA’s relationships with its counsel, employees, or counterparties;
• Disparaging Winners Alliance or PTPA;
• Accessing PTPA’s systems or property.

The complaint further seeks an order requiring Mir to return all PTPA and Winners Alliance files, records, documents, and data in his possession (Compl. ¶91-92). The complaint states, "Plaintiffs have an immediate and superior right to possession of their property, including their files, records, documents, and data" (Compl. ¶91).

Additionally, the complaint seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, punitive or exemplary damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by the employment agreement and applicable law, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest (Compl. prayer for relief). The complaint demands a jury trial on all triable claims.

The allegations in the complaint are unproven, and no defendant has yet responded in court.

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.

David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.