Scott D. Gilchrist

FEATURED CASES AND MATTERS

Antitrust

• In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 05-cv-00979-SEB-VSS. Mr. Gilchrist acted as principal attorney when Cohen & Malad, LLP was appointed co-lead counsel in a consolidated proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy among all of the major ready-mixed concrete suppliers in the Indianapolis area. The total settlements submitted to the court provide for a recovery of $59 million, allowing a distribution to class members of approximately 100% of their estimated actual damages after the payment of fees and costs.

• In re Iowa Ready Mix Concrete Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court District of Iowa, Case No. C 10-4038-MWB. Mr. Gilchrist acted as principal attorney when Cohen & Malad, LLP was appointed co-lead counsel in another consolidated class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy among major suppliers of ready-mixed concrete in northwest Iowa and surrounding states. Settlements totaled $18.5 million, again allowing a distribution to class members of approximately 100% of their estimate actual damages after the payment of fees and costs. 

• In re Auto Parts Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Master Case No. 12-md-02311-MOB-MKM. Gilchrist is acting as counsel for direct purchaser plaintiffs in this consolidated proceeding joining dozens of class actions alleging price-fixing, bid rigging, and customer allocation by manufacturers of automobile parts in violation of federal antitrust law. 

• Caroline Behrend, et al. v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-6604 (E.D. Pa.). Antitrust class action on behalf of subscribers alleging unlawful monopolization of cable television markets.

• In re: Photochromic Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 10-md-02173-JDW-EAJ (M.D. Fla.). Antitrust class action on behalf of direct purchasers alleging unlawful monopolization of market for photochromic lenses.

• In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-md-02437 (E.D. Pa.). Antitrust class action on behalf of direct purchasers alleging price fixing among certain major manufacturers and distributors of drywall in the United States.

• In re: High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00-MD-1368 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y.). Antitrust class action on behalf of direct purchasers of high pressure laminates from certain major manufacturers in the United States.

Landowner and Developer Claims

• Fiber Optic Cable Railroad Right-of-Way Litigation Gilchrist was appointed class counsel in dozens of class actions brought on behalf of landowners in states across the country to recover damages for trespass by telecommunications companies who installed fiber optic cable and related equipment in railroad easements crossing class members’ property. Settlements approved in these class actions have a combined valued of nearly $150 million. 

• Beacon Development, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, et al., Case No. 49D13-0409-PL-001754 (Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court). Class counsel in class action on behalf of local developers seeking payments owed to them by City for installing sewer facilities. Settlement for 100% of payments owed, some of which exceeded $40,000. 

Consumer and Government Overreach Claims

• Baker v. Hubler Ford Center, Inc. d/b/a Hubler Ford Lincoln Mercury, Cause No. 73C01-0005-CT-14 (Shelby County, Indiana, Circuit Court). Class Counsel on behalf of customers alleging forgery, fraud, constructive fraud and Consumer Protection Act violations by car dealership in connection with the sale and lease of automobiles. Settlement provided each class member with $5,000 to $8,000 in benefits. 

• In re: Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation, Case No. 02-md-01468-JWL (D. Kans.). Counsel for plaintiff class in class action in which a jury awarded telephone customers $18 million for “universal service fee” overcharges by national service provider. 

• Raab v. Waddell and Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Cause No. 49D12-1303-PL-008769 (Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court). Counsel for Plaintiff Class of millions of Indiana drivers overcharged for operator’s licenses by the Indiana BMV, which resulted in a $30 million settlement. 

• Raab v. Abernathy and Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Cause No. 49D11-1310-PL-038001 (Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court). Class action certified on behalf of millions Indiana persons and entities who paid registration, title and license fees to the Indiana BMV.  The Plaintiff Class alleges that the Indiana BMV overcharged tens of millions of dollars for dozens of categories of fees during a period spanning more than a decade. 

Securities Fraud and Corporate Governance

• In re: AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities & ERISA Litigation,Master Case No. 06 Civ. 0695(SWK) (S.D.N.Y.).  Counsel for plaintiffs in securities fraud class action that settled for record $2.6 billion in 2006.

• In re: Guidant Securities Litigation,Master Case No. 1:05-CV-01658-SEB-WTL (S.D. Ind.). Class action for securities fraud in which Cohen & Malad was appointed Plaintiff’s Liaison Counsel. 

• City of Austin Police Retirement System v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., 1:04-cv-00380-DFH-TAB (S.D. Ind.). Class action for securities fraud in which Cohen & Malad was appointed Plaintiff’s Co-Lead Counsel. 

• In re: Zimmer Holdings, Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, MDL No. 2055, Master Case No. 1:09-ml-6000 SEB-DML (S.D. Ind.). Consolidated securities fraud, shareholder derivative and ERISA litigation in which Cohen & Malad was appointed Plaintiff’s Liaison Counsel. 

• In re: ITT Corporation Derivative Litigation, Case NO. 94S-0911-CQ-00508 (Indiana Supreme Court). Counsel for Plaintiffs in shareholder derivative litigation in which question was certified to Indiana Supreme Court. 

• William Carter et al. v. CNO Financial Group, Inc. et al., Cause No. 49D10-1006-PL-024523 (Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court). Shareholder derivative case alleging breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment.