Thomas Laughlin is a partner in the firm's New York office. Mr. Laughlin is a graduate of Yale University (B.A. History, cum laude, 2001) and New York University School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2005). After graduating from law school, Mr. Laughlin clerked for the Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of California.
Mr. Laughlin's practice focuses on securities class action, shareholder derivative, ERISA and other complex commercial litigation. While at Scott+Scott, Mr. Laughlin has worked on several cases that have achieved notable victories, including Cornwell v. Credit Suisse, No. 08-3758 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities settlement of $70 million), Rubenstein v. Oilsands Quest Inc., No. 11-1288 (S.D.N.Y.) (securities settlement of $10.235 million) Plymouth County Contributory Ret. Sys. v. Hassan, No. 08-1022 (D.N.J.) (corporate governance reform); and Garcia v. Carrion, No. 09-1507 (D.P.R.) (corporate governance reform). Mr. Laughlin is a member of the New York bar and is admitted to practice in the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York.
Mr. Laughlin also has significant appellate experience, having represented clients in connection with several appellate victories, including Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2013); Westmoreland County Employee Retir. Sys. v. Parkinson, 727 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2013); Pfeil v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 671 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2012); and King v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., 12 A.3d 1140 (Del. Supr. 2011).
In 2014, Mr. Laughlin was co-chair of a 13-day bench trial in Bankers' Bank Northeast v. Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC, No. 12-cv-00127 (D. Me.). Mr. Laughlin represented a consortium of 10 community banks asserting negligence and professional malpractice claims against the former officers and directors of a bank and its auditor in connection with an $18 million loan made to that bank in September 2008. Among other things, Mr. Laughlin conducted the cross-examination of all three witnesses from the defendant auditing firm and the direct examination of plaintiff's auditing expert. The parties to the action succeeded in resolving the action after trial.