Securities Fraud + Corporate Governance

Scott+Scott is a nationally recognized law firm that recovers money for individual and institutional investors who have suffered from corporate stock fraud through securities class action and corporate governance/shareholder derivative litigation.  Scott+Scott's philosophy is simple - officers and directors of a corporation should be responsible to their shareholders and the public markets.  The Firm has participated in recovering billions of dollars and achieved precedent-setting reforms in corporate governance on behalf of investors and shareholders.

Since its inception, Scott+Scott's securities and corporate governance litigation department has developed and maintained a reputation of excellence and integrity recognized by state and federal courts and law firms across the country.  Below is a representative sampling of the cases litigated in the past three years under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisor Act of 1940 and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") in which courts have recognized Scott+Scott's legal qualification, appointing it and its clients to leadership positions:

  • In re Tetra Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08-cv-00965 (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas)
  • Fulton County Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. MGIC Investment Corporation, et al., No. 08-cv-458 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin)
  • Boilermakers National Annuity Trust Fund v. WaMu Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, et al., No. 09-cv-0037 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington)
  • Baydale, et al. v. American Express Company, et al., No. 09-cv-03016 (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York)
  • West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, et al. v. Lewis, et al., No. 09-cv-02581-DC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York)
  • Fort Worth Employees Retirement Fund v. J. P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 09-cv-03701 (U.S. District court, Southern District of New York)
  • In re Priceline.com Securities Litigation, No. 00-cv-01884 (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut) ($80 million settlement)

"The quality of representation here is demonstrated, in part, by the result achieved for the class.  Further, it has been this court's experience, throughout the ongoing litigation of this matter, that counsel have conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism and respect for the court and the judicial process."

  • Schnall v. Annuity and Life Re (Holdings) Ltd., No. 02-cv-2133 (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut) ($26.5 million settlement)
  • Wood v. Ionatron, Inc., No. 06-cv-00354 (U.S. District Court, District of Arizona) ($6.5 million settlement)
  • In Re Signalife, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08-cv-03183 (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina)

In addition to these securities cases, Scott+Scott has a proven track record of handling corporate governance matters through its extensive experience litigating shareholder derivative actions.  The Firm held, or continues to hold, a leadership position in the following shareholder derivative actions.

  • In re Marvell Tech. Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation, No. C-06-03894-RMW (RS) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California)
  • Carfagno v. Schnitzer, No. 08-cv-912-SAS (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York)
  • Tucker v. Scrushy, No. CV-02-5212 (Supreme Court of Ala.)
  • In re Lattice Semiconductor Corp. Deriv. Litig., Case No. C 043327CV (Cir. Ct. Oregon)
  • In re Qwest Communications International, Inc., No. 01-RB-1451 (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado)
  • In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. CV 07-6347 MHP (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California)
  • In re The Colonial BancGroup Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. CV-2009-239 (Supreme Court of Ala.)
  • Cain v. Hassan, No. 08-cv-1022 (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey)
  • The Estate of Jacquelin K. Stevenson v. Kavanaugh, No. 2008-CP-10-1735 (S.C. Com. Pleas 9th Judicial Cir.)
  • Garcia v. Carrion, et al., No. 09-cv-1507 (U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico)

Antitrust

The Firm is actively involved in litigating many complex antitrust cases throughout the United States.  Scott+Scott has taken or is currently in a lead role in a number of antitrust actions.  Scott+Scott represents plaintiffs in price-fixing, monopolization, bid-rigging, customer restraints and other restraints of trade cases, including both individual and class action cases.  In such actions, Scott+Scott works to ensure that the markets remain free, open and competitive to the benefit of both consumers purchasing and business enterprises operating in such markets.  In addition to traditional price-fixing cases, the Firm and its lawyers have taken the lead in a number of novel antitrust claims throughout the United States, including, among others, Red Lion Medical Safety, Inc. v. Ohmeda, Inc. (tying claims in medical device industry), Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners (market allocation by private equity firms), In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation and Weintraub v. Aetna, et al. (restraint in market for the provision of usual and customary rates used to establish out-of-network reimbursement).

In addition to bringing antitrust class actions, Scott+Scott has represented and continues to represent companies, including publicly-traded corporations, such as Parker Hannifin Corporation, PolyOne Corporation and Lincoln Electric, in various opt-out antitrust litigation.  Representative opt-out litigation includes In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation, 1:02-cv-0844-KMO (N.D. Ohio), In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1648, In re Polychloroprene Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1642, and In re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 1684.  Recently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a trial verdict of $23,036,000 obtained by Scott+Scott in In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation.

Consumer Rights

Scott+Scott regularly represents aggrieved consumers in a variety of class action cases pending throughout the United States.  In addition to more typical cases involving consumer finance issues, such as In re: Providian Credit Card Litigation (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco), the Firm actively is litigating cases against a number of health maintenance organizations (HMO) and other corporate defendants, including: Albert v. Physician Health Services of Connecticut, Inc. and O'Brien v. Aetna, Inc. and Aenta-U.S. Healthcare, Inc. (United States District Court, District of Connecticut); Medical Society of the State of New York v. Connecticut General Corporation, et al. (New York Supreme Court, County of New York); and Granito, et al. v. International Business Machines, Inc. (Connecticut Superior Court).  Scott+Scott also has been involved in a number of major consumer fraud cases under state consumer protection laws, including: Hamage v. Publishers Clearing House (Connecticut Superior Court); Gould v. IDT Corporation (United States District Court, District of New Jersey); In re: Kava Kava Litigation (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles); Fischer, et al. v. MasterCard International, Inc., et al. (New York Supreme Court, County of New York); and Paton, et al. v. Cingular Wireless, et al. (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco).

Employee Benefits (ERISA)

Scott+Scott actively litigates complex class actions across the United States on behalf of corporate employees alleging violations of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  ERISA was enacted by Congress to prevent employers from exercising improper control over retirement plan assets and requires that pension and 401(k) plan trustees, including employer corporations, owe the highest fiduciary duties to retirement plans and their participants as to their retirement funds.  Scott+Scott is committed to continuing its leadership in ERISA and related employee-retirement litigation, as well as to those employees who entrust their employers with hard-earned retirement savings.