Securities Fraud + Corporate Governance

Scott+Scott represents individuals and institutional investors that have suffered from stock fraud and corporate malfeasance. Scott+Scott's philosophy is simple - directors and officers should be truthful in their dealings with the public markets and honor their duties to their 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 and state courts across the country. "It is this Court's position that Scott+Scott did a superlative job in its representation, which substantially benefited Ariel . . . . For the record, it should be noted that Scott+Scott has demonstrated a remarkable grasp and handling of the extraordinarily complex matters in this case . . . . They have possessed a knowledge of the issues presented and this knowledge has always been used to the benefit of all investors." N.Y. Univ. v. Ariel Fund Ltd., No. 603803/08, slip. op. at 9-10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 22, 2010). "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." In re, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 00-cv-01884, 2007 WL 2115592, at *5 (D. Conn. July 20, 2007).

Scott+Scott has successfully prosecuted numerous class actions under the federal securities laws, resulting in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders. Representative cases prosecuted by Scott+Scott under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 include: In re, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 00-cv-01884 (D. Conn. July 19, 2007) ($80 million settlement); Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group, No. 08-cv-03758 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2011) ($70 million settlement); and Schnall v. Annuity and Life Re (Holdings) Ltd., No. 02-cv-2133 (D. Conn. June 13, 2008) ($26.5 million settlement). Representative cases prosecuted by Scott+Scott under the Securities Act of 1933 include: Parker v. National City Corp., No. CV-08-657360 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga County, June 23, 2010) ($5.25 million settlement); and Hamel v. GT Solar International, Inc., No. 217-2010-CV-05004 (N.H. Super. Ct., Merrimack County, May 10, 2011) ($10.25 million settlement).

Scott+Scott currently serves as court-appointed lead counsel in various federal securities class actions, including St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighter's Pension Trust Fund v. Oilsands Quest Inc., No. 11-cv-1288-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011); In re Washington Mutual Mortgage Backed Securities Litigation, No. 09-cv-0037 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 23, 2009); and West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. CardioNet, Inc., No. 37-2010-00086836-CU-SL-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego County, 2010) ($7.25 million settlement pending).

In addition to prosecuting federal securities class actions, Scott+Scott has a proven track record of handling corporate governance matters through its extensive experience litigating shareholder derivative actions. Representative actions include: In re Marvell Tech. Group Ltd. Derivative Litigation, No. C-06-03894-RMW (RS) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2009) ($54.9 million and corporate governance reforms); In re Qwest Communications International, Inc., No. Civ. 01-RB-1451 (D. Colo. June 15, 2004) ($25 million and corporate governance reform); Carfagno v. Schnitzer, No. 08-cv-912-SAS (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2009) (modification of terms of preferred securities issued to insiders valued at $8 million); and Garcia v. Carrion, No. 3:09-cv-01507 (D.P.R. Sept. 12, 2011) (settlement of derivative claims against the company and its officers and directors providing for corporate governance reforms valued between $10.05 million and $15.49 million). Currently, Scott+Scott is actively prosecuting shareholder derivative actions, including Plymouth County Contributory Retirement Fund v. Hassan, No. 08-cv-1022 (D.N.J.); Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Ritter, 20-CV-01588 (Ala. Cir. Ct., Jefferson County); Estate of Jacquelin K. Stevenson v. Kavanaugh, No. 08-CP-10-1735 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., Charleston County); Currie v. Begley, No. 2011 MR 000608 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Kane County); and North Miami Beach General Employees Retirement Fund v. Parkinson, No. 10C6514 (N.D. Ill.).

View Securities Cases




Scott+Scott actively litigates complex antitrust cases throughout the United States. Scott+Scott represents consumers and businesses in price-fixing, bid-rigging, monopolization, and other restraints of trade cases.  In such actions, Scott+Scott works to ensure that the markets remain free, open, and competitive to the benefit of both consumers and business.  Scott+Scott currently serves as lead counsel in a number of class action antitrust cases, including Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, No. 1:07-cv-12388 (D. Mass.) ($590.5 million settlement pending) (challenging bid rigging and market allocation in the private equity/leveraged-buyout industry); In Re: Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, 13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (challenging price fixing of foreign exchange rates); and In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1891, No. CV 07-06542 (C.D. Cal.) (challenging price fixing/illegal surcharge).

Scott+Scott's class action antitrust experience includes serving as co-trial counsel in In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation, 02-cv-0844-KMO (N.D. Ohio), where it helped obtain a $34.5 million jury verdict, which was subsequently affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (see In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation, 527 F.3d 517, 524 (6th Cir. 2008)), as well asRoss v. Bank of America N.A., No. 05-cv-7116, MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y.), andRoss v. American Express Co., No. 04-cv-5723, MDL No. 1409 (S.D.N.Y).

Additionally, Scott+Scott served on leadership executive committees in various class action cases, including In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) ($7.25 billion settlement), and currently serves on the Executive Committee in Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corporation of America, No. 1:10-cv-05711 (N.D. Ill.); and In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-md-2420-YGR (DMR) (N.D. Cal.).

In addition to antitrust class actions, Scott+Scott represents clients in opt-out antitrust litigation.  Past clients include publicly traded corporations, such as Parker Hannifin Corporation and PolyOne Corporation.  Representative opt-out litigation prosecuted by Scott+Scott includes In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1648 (N.D. Cal.); In re Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1642 (D. Conn.); In re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litigation(No. II), MDL No. 1684 (E.D. Pa.); and In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2481 (S.D.N.Y.) (representing Eastman Kodak Company, Agfa Corporation and Agfa Graphics, N.V., and Mag Instrument, Inc.).

Consumer Rights


Scott+Scott regularly represents the rights of consumers throughout the United States by prosecuting class actions under federal and state laws.

Scott+Scott currently serves as lead counsel in In re Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation, No. 3:11-md-02208-MAP (D. Mass.) ($40 million settlement pending) (challenging Prudential’s actions relating to the issuance of life insurance contracts to the nation’s military personnel and dependents); and on the Executive Committee in In re Wellpoint “UCR” Litigation, No. 09-ml-2074 (C.D. Cal.); and In re: Aetna, Inc. Out of Network “UCR” Rates Litigation, MDL No. 2020 (D.N.J.).

In Gunther v. Capital One, N.A., No. 09-2966-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), Scott+Scott obtained a net settlement resulting in class members receiving 100% of their damages.  Other settlements obtained by Scott+Scott include In re Kava Kava Litigation, Lead Case No. BC 269717 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County); Fischer v. MasterCard International, Inc., No. 600572/2003 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. and New York County); Salkin v. MasterCard International Incorporated, No. 002648 (Penn. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia County).

View Consumer Cases



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 pensions 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 employers with hard-earned retirement savings.


Civil Rights Litigation


Scott+Scott has also successfully litigated cases to enforce its clients' civil rights. In The Vulcan Society, Inc. v. The City of New York, No. 1:07-cv-02067-NGG-RLM(E.D.N.Y.),Scott+Scott was part of a team of lawyers representing a class of black applicants who were denied or delayed employment as New York City firefighters due to decades of racial discriminatory conduct. The district court certified the class in a post-Walmart v. Dukes decision, granted summary judgment against the City on both intentional discrimination and disparate impact claims, and after trial ordered broad injunctive relief, including a new examination, revision of the application procedure, and continued monitoring by a court-appointed monitor for at least 10 years. The back pay and compensatory damage award will be determined in a subsequent ruling In Hohider v. United Parcel Services, Inc., No. 2:04-cv-00363-JFC(W.D. Penn.), Scott+Scott obtained significant structural changes to UPS's Americans with Disabilities Act compliance policies and monetary awards for some individual employees in settlement of a ground-breaking case seeking nationwide class certification of UPS employees who were barred from reemployment after suffering injuries on the job.