Scott Ewing is an associate in the White Collar Criminal Defense and Securities Litigation Practice Groups in the Dallas office of Haynes and Boone. His practice focuses on complex business litigation, internal corporate investigations, and representation of companies and executives facing federal investigation.
Scott's experience includes
- Represented Fortune 200 defense company in a dispute involving claims of monopolization, group boycott, and tying.
- Represented board of directors in connection with shareholder class action in Nevada alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with board approval of merger.
- Representing a motor-vehicle manufacturer in a complex commercial dispute.
- Participating in internal investigation of corporate conduct for report to the Board of Directors of a Fortune 100 company.
- Assisting in the defense of the former CEO of an international technology company in an SEC enforcement action for options backdating.
Publications and Speeches
- "Avoiding Legal Pitfalls Related to Antitrust Issues and the Internet," presented with Bill Morrison at the American Lighting Association Annual Conference, September 9-11, 2012.
- Selected for inclusion in Texas Super Lawyers - Rising Stars Edition in Criminal Defense: White Collar, 2013
Selected Representative Experience
Argo Data Res. Corp. v. Shagrithaya, 380 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 29, 2012, pet. filed)
Obtained reversal and rendition of take-nothing judgment in favor of corporate client on appeal of alleged shareholder oppression claim in which trial court had ordered that corporation be caused to issue an $85 million dividend.
Antitrust Counseling in Proposed Telecommunications Acquisition
Represented AT&T before the DOJ and FCC on antitrust matters related to proposed acquisition of T-Mobile USA, including pre-merger integration counseling and planning.
Financial Services Antitrust Investigation
Representation of leading financial services provider in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division into alleged antitrust violations in the municipal finance industry.
L-3 v. Lockheed Martin, Northern District of Texas
Representation of L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, Inc. in federal antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Lockheed Martin. The lawsuit, which settled in 2010, alleged that Lockheed Martin violated the antitrust laws by monopolizing the international market for refurbishment of P-3 aircraft.
In re Arena Resources, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
Represented acquired entity, Arena Resources, Inc., and its board of directors in nine shareholder class actions filed in two Nevada state courts, two Oklahoma state courts, and Oklahoma federal court, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the board’s approval of the $1.6 billion acquisition of the company by SandRidge Energy, Inc.
Shagitahya v. Martin and ARGO
Defense of claims of minority shareholder oppression and request for dividend from company to all shareholders.
09/25/2013 - Third Circuit Raises the Bar on the Ascertainability Requirement in Class Litigation
An important, and often overlooked, arrow in the quiver of any company defending itself against potentially devastating class litigation is the implicit requirement of “ascertainability.”
05/15/2013 - $39 Million Jury Verdict in False Claims Act Suit against Tuomey Healthcare
Last week, a federal jury in South Carolina found that Tuomey Healthcare System, Inc. violated the Stark Law and the False Claims Act by submitting false claims for reimbursement to the United States, resulting in $39 million in damages to the government.
04/11/2013 - Delaware Supreme Court Holds That Chancery Court Should Have Given Preclusive Effect to California Judgment Dismissing Complaint for Failing to Plead Demand Futility
Last week the Delaware Supreme Court held in Pyott v. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System
, ___ A.3d ___, 2013 WL 1364695 (Del. 2013), that a Delaware derivative complaint should have been dismissed after a California federal court entered a judgment dismissing essentially the same complaint brought by different stockholders for failure to plead demand futility.
06/28/2010 - Supreme Court Limits Reach of Securities Fraud Actions Against Foreign Companies
In an opinion issued last week, Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.,
559 U.S. __ (2010), the Supreme Court held that foreign plaintiffs cannot use the U.S. Securities laws to sue foreign issuers based on foreign stock purchases: a ruling that sounds the death knell for these so-called “foreign cubed” cases.