David R. Scott is the managing partner of Scott+Scott. He represents multinational corporations, hedge funds, and institutional investors in high-stakes complex litigation, including antitrust, commercial, and securities actions.
Mr. Scott has received widespread recognition for his antitrust work. He has been elected to Who's Who Legal: Competition 2015, 2016 and 2017 which lists the world's top antitrust lawyers, who are selected based on comprehensive, independent survey work with both general counsel and lawyers in private practice around the world. He has also received a highly recommended ranking by Benchmark Litigation for each of the years 2013-2015.
Mr. Scott's antitrust experience includes matters dealing with unlawful price-fixing cartels, illegal tying, and anticompetitive monopolization. Currently, Mr. Scott is lead counsel in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, a cartel action alleging a longstanding and widespread conspiracy to manipulate the foreign exchange market, in which billions in settlements have been announced to date. He is co-lead counsel in a class action case alleging that the world's largest banks and their broker, ICAP, entered a conspiracy to manipulate ISDAfix, a financial benchmark that is tied to over $379 trillion of outstanding interest-rate swaps around the world.
Mr. Scott's previous antitrust cases have resulted in significant recoveries for victims of price-fixing cartels. Among other cases, Mr. Scott served as co-lead counsel in Dahl v Bain Capital Partners, No. 1:07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.), an action alleging that the largest private equity firms in the United States colluded to suppress prices that shareholders received in leveraged buyouts and that Defendants recently agreed to settle for $600 million. He also played a leadership role in a lawsuit accusing Visa and MasterCard of engaging in anticompetitive conduct in setting credit card and debit card acceptance fees that recently settled for a record $7.25 billion. And he was lead counsel in Red Lion Medical Safety v. Ohmeda, No. 06-cv-1010 (E.D. Cal.), a lawsuit alleging that Ohmeda, one of the leading manufacturers of medical anesthesia equipment in the United States, excluded independent service organizations from the market for servicing its equipment. The case was successfully resolved in settlement negotiations before trial.
Mr. Scott has also taken the lead in bringing claims on behalf of institutional investors, such as sovereign wealth funds, corporate pension schemes, public employee retirement funds, against mortgaged-backed securities trustees for failing to protect investors. Such cases include Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. The Bank of New York Mellon (MBS sponsored by Countrywide Financial Corp.), No. 1:11-cv-05459 (S.D.N.Y.); Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of America (MBS sponsored by Washington Mutual Bank), No. 1:12-cv-02865 (S.D.N.Y.); and Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. U.S. Bank National Association (MBS sponsored by Bear Stearns), No. 1:11-cv-08066 (S.D.N.Y.). He also represented a consortium of regional banks in litigation relating to toxic auction rate securities ("ARS") and obtained a sizable recovery for the banks in a confidential settlement. This case represents one of the few ARS cases in the country to be successfully resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.
In addition, Mr. Scott has extensive experience litigating shareholder derivative cases, achieving substantial corporate governance reforms on behalf of his clients. Representative actions include: In re Marvell Tech. Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation, No. C-06-03894 (N.D. Cal.) (settlement obtaining $54.9 million in financial benefits for the company, including $14.6 million in cash, and corporate governance reforms to improve stock option granting procedures and internal controls, valued at more than $150 million); In re Qwest Communications International, Inc., No. 01-RB-1451 (D. Colo.) (settlement obtaining $25 million for the company and achieving corporate governance reforms aimed at ensuring board independence); Plymouth County Contributory Retirement System v. Hasan, No. 08-1022 (D.N.J.) (settlement requiring annual reporting to the company's board where any clinical drug trial is delayed, valued at between $50-$75 million); Carfagno v. Schnitzer, No. 08-cv-0912 (S.D.N.Y.) (settlement resulting in modification of terms of preferred securities issued to insiders, valued at $8 million); and Garcia v. Carrion, No. 09-cv-1507 (D.P.R.) (settlement achieving reforms aimed at rectifying internal control weaknesses and improving director education in accounting and ethics, valued at between $10-$15 million).
Mr. Scott is frequently quoted in the press, including in publications such as The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, and Law360. He is regularly invited to speak at conferences around the world and before Boards of Directors and trustees responsible for managing institutional investments.
Mr. Scott is admitted to practice in Connecticut, New York, the United States Tax Court, and numerous United States District Courts.