Source: https://www.athertonlg.com/scott.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:21:39+00:00

Document:
Scott Atherton has a broad-based complex commercial litigation practice, which includes representing public and private companies in shareholder disputes, fraud litigation, deceptive trade practices actions, and employment law-related claims. Scott also represents attorneys, accountants, and other fiduciaries in professional liability cases and litigates a broad range of e-discovery sanctions disputes.
Although Scott's practice is concentrated in federal and state courts in Florida, he has also represented clients in courts, arbitrations, and administrative forums across the country, including in California, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Business Litigation - Defense of a Chicago-based international law firm in breach of fiduciary duty action where the plaintiff, the former CEO of an oil and gas company, sought over $1 billion in economic damages. The Court struck the former CEO’s claims as a sanction after a five day federal court trial and entered judgment against the former CEO. See Leor Exploration & Production, LLC v. Aguiar, 2010 WL 3782195 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2010). The CEO’s trial counsel included Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and several large international law firms.
Shareholder and Securities Disputes - Represented publicly registered alternative fuel company in defense of hostile takeover attempt by the company's largest unit holder. After the unit holder refused to close on a $30,000,000 agreement for the repurchase of his interest in the company, the unit holder attempted to take control of the board of directors and filed a variety of claims against the company, members of its board, and the company's management, including state and federal securities fraud claims, breach of fiduciary duty claims, claims to enjoin investor votes, and claims alleging certain proxy statements were misleading. See Retterath v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC et al, 2014 WL 7776705 (S.D. Iowa Dec. 24, 2014).
Employment Claims - Represented international video game and entertainment company in defense of race discrimination claims asserted by the Civil Rights Division of a large municipality on behalf of patrons. The claims asserted involved, among other allegations, racial profiling, use of excessive force by security personnel, and racially biased dress code rules.
Contract Actions - Trial counsel for seller in a stock purchase dispute resulting in an $867,854 damage award for seller (exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs). See Petlev c. Monitor Outlet, Inc., Case No. 2007CA017348XXXXMBAG (Fla. 15th Jud. Cir. 2007).
Deceptive Trade Practices Litigation - Defended national consumer service provider against Lanham Act false advertising/unfair competition and deceptive trade practice claims asserted by its largest competitor. The competitor sought a permanent injunction and damages in excess of $21,000,000.00, alleging that certain sales personnel employed by companies which transact with our client had made misrepresentations to at least 150 consumers across the country.
Noncompete and Trade Secret Cases - Trial counsel for international security company in a noncompete action against two former area managers resulting in the entry of a final injunction following a four day trial. Court also awarded security company client approximately $240,000 in prevailing party attorneys’ fees and costs. See Wackenhut Corp. v. Schira, Case No. 502008CA005466XXXXMBAA (Fla. 15th Jud. Cir. 2008).
Professional Liability Disputes - Defense of malpractice claims, and prosecution of counterclaim for unpaid legal services, on behalf of national law firm. After obtaining partial summary judgment determining that the plaintiff was obligated to pay the firm approximately $415,000, the plaintiff attempted to voluntarily dismiss his malpractice complaint. The Court determined that it maintained jurisdiction to enforce certain sanctions against the plaintiff, even after his voluntary dismissal of the malpractice claims, and the Court further ruled that the firm was entitled to prevailing party attorneys’ fees for its counterclaim. See White v. Buckingham Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, 2010 WL 3823479 (Fla. 15th Jud. Cir. Apr. 16, 2010).
Healthcare Fraud - Prosecuted RICO, fraud, and deceptive trade practice claims, including action on behalf of auto insurance carriers seeking in excess of $35 million in damages against physicians, surgery centers, and medical practice managers relating to certain spinal procedures performed on personal injury claimants. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kugler et al, 2011 WL 4389915 (S.D. Fla. Sept 21, 2011).
Electronic Discovery - Trial counsel for attorney in connection with cross fraud-on-the-court motions relating to manipulated email evidence in a large commercial case. The main issue tried was whether the attorney we represented, or his opposing counsel, manipulated certain email evidence which had been presented at a summary judgment hearing by opposing counsel in support of economic damage claims in excess of $40 million. Following a four day trial, the court found, "by clear and convincing evidence, that either [the opposing party] or [opposing counsel] … fraudulently doctored the email." See Palm Beach Florida Hotel v. Nantucket Enterprises, Inc., 2013 WL 686433 (Fla. Jud. Cir. Feb. 25, 2013). The court struck certain of the opposing counsel’s pleadings, and also awarded attorneys’ fees to our client.
All content © 2019 Atherton McAuliffe & Reeder PA. All rights reserved.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. Please note that each case is unique, and the result obtained in one case should not be relied upon as an indication of what the result will be in another. This website is for general informational purposes only and nothing contained herein should be construed as legal advice of any kind.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.