Sarah Mallett is an associate in the White Collar Criminal Defense, Antitrust, Securities Class Action Defense and Shareholder Litigation Practice Groups in the Dallas office of Haynes and Boone, LLP. Her practice focuses on complex civil litigation, class action and securities litigation, SEC enforcement defense, internal corporate investigations, and representation of companies and individuals facing government investigation.
Before joining Haynes and Boone, Sarah served as a judicial intern to Magistrate Judge Irma C. Ramirez of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
- Defense of individuals in class action litigation alleging breaches of fiduciary duty.
- Defense of individuals in M&A class action litigation.
- Defense of Board of Directors in shareholder derivative actions.
- Defense of C-level executives in SEC investigations.
- Representation of C-level executive in connection with DOJ investigation for antitrust violations.
- Internal investigation of corporate conduct for report to audit committee of Fortune 500 company.
- "Haynes and Boone Securities Litigation Year in Review 2012," contributing author, January 30, 2013.
- "Haynes and Boone Securities Litigation Year in Review 2011," contributing author, February 3, 2012.
- "Program Insights - Disclosure of Leniency Documents: Implications of the ECJ’s Pfleiderer Decision in the U.S.," ABA Antitrust Section Joint Conduct Committee E-Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 2011.
- "Work-Product Doctrine - The First Circuit Further Confuses An Existing Circuit Split In United States v. Textron, Inc.," 63 SMU L. REV. 251 (2010).
Selected Representative Experience
Frozen Food Express Special Litigation Committee
Represented independent directors of Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. in multiple suits filed in state and federal court arising from the company’s announced acquisition by Duff Brothers Capital. Argued against and defeated shareholder plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to halt the transaction, and obtained subsequent voluntary dismissal of all actions.
10/09/2013 - SEC's $14 Million Award Highlights the Importance of Effectively Responding to Internal Whistleblower Reports
After two years of operations, the SEC’s whistleblower program announced its first multimillion dollar award - a record $14 million payment to an anonymous tipster. The award is the largest of three announced since the program’s inception and emphatically signals the SEC’s continuing emphasis on its whistleblower program.
06/14/2013 - Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter: Supreme Court Defers to Arbitrator’s Interpretation that Contract Authorized Class Arbitration
On June 10, 2013, a unanimous Supreme Court in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter
, 569 U.S. ___ (2013), held that an arbitrator’s decision to allow class arbitration cannot be overturned if the decision was based on the interpretation of the parties’ contract.
03/23/2012 - Connections and Tangential Relationships: the Fifth Circuit Rules on Issue of First Impression and Adopts Standard for SLUSA Preclusion
In a decision issued this week, Roland v. Green
, -- F.3d --, 2012 WL 898557 (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2012), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed an issue of first impression - the scope of the preclusion provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”).
02/13/2012 - Fifth Circuit Affirms Courts’ Discretion on Fee Methods in Common Fund Class Settlements
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has confirmed that lower courts may use their discretion in choosing either of two methods - the “percentage method” or “lodestar method” - to calculate attorneys’ fees in class action suits. The decision, in Union Asset Mgmt Holding A.G. v. Dell, Inc.,
2012 WL 35249 (5th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012), affirmed a district court’s use of the percentage method to calculate a $7.2 million fee award.
12/01/2011 - Program Insights - Disclosure of Leniency Documents: Implications of the ECJ’s Pfleiderer Decision in the U.S.
The European Court of Justice’s (“ECJ”) recent decision in Pfleiderer AG v. Bundeskartellamt
(“Pfleiderer”) introduced uncertainty regarding the ability of leniency applicants to maintain the confidentiality of documents.