Scott Scheele / Antitrust & Competition Practice Group

Antitrust & Competition Practice Group

Kirkland and Ellis PG&E Ethics and Oracle v. PeopleSoft

Clipped from: https://www.kirkland.com/lawyers/s/scheele-scott

Partner Antitrust & Competition

scott.scheele@kirkland.com

Washington, D.C. +1 202 389 3279

• PDF
• V

Practices

• Antitrust & Competition
• Litigation

Overview

Scott Scheele is a partner in the Antitrust & Competition Practice Group in the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Scott has over 30 years of experience, including serving as a senior executive and supervisor in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. He has handled matters involving the media, telecommunications, technology and financial services industries, and has substantial antitrust litigation, trial, investigation and management experience.

Scott spent nine years as the Chief of the Media, Entertainment and Communications Section of the Antitrust Division, and in that capacity supervised all merger and civil conduct investigations and implemented competition policy in the areas of wireless and wireline telecommunications, media and entertainment. Before that, he spent eight years as the Assistant Chief of the Networks & Technology Enforcement Section. Scott joined the Antitrust Division in 1995, after five years as an associate with Howrey & Simon.

Prior to joining Kirkland, Scott’s significant public investigations and cases involved:

• United States v. Liberty Latin America/AT&T (D.D.C. 2020). Complaint and settlement of Liberty’s $2 billion acquisition of AT&T’s wireless and wireline telecommunications business in Puerto Rico.
• United States v. T-Mobile/Sprint (D.D.C. 2019). Investigation of $26 billion merger of two national wireless carriers that resulted in a complaint and settlement through consent decree.
• United States v. AT&T/Time Warner (D.D.C. 2017). Extensive investigation and contested trial seeking to block the $100 billion vertical merger of the country’s largest video distributor (DirectTV) with a large content provider (Time Warner).
• United States v. CenturyLink/Level 3 (D.D.C. 2017). Complaint and settlement of CenturyLink’s $34 billion acquisition of Level 3’s telecommunications business.
• United States v. AT&T (C.D. Cal. 2016). Contested Sherman Act Section 1 litigation alleging information sharing among video distribution competitors regarding their intentions to distribute the Los Angeles Dodgers regional sports network. Shortly after briefing of AT&T’s motion to dismiss, the case was settled through a consent decree that obtained all relief sought in the Government’s prayer for relief.
• United States v. Charter/Time Warner Cable (D.D.C. 2016). Complaint and settlement of Charter Communication’s $90 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.
• Comcast/Time Warner Cable (2015). Investigation of Comcast’s proposed $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable – two incumbent cable providers that did not have overlapping territories. Comcast abandoned the merger.
• United States v. Sinclair/Perpetual (D.D.C. 2014). Complaint and settlement requiring divestiture of television station filed in connection with a nearly $1 billion acquisition.
• United States v. Gannett/Belo (D.D.C. 2013). Complaint and settlement requiring divestiture of television station filed in connection with a $2.2 billion acquisition.
• United States v. eBay (N.D. Cal. 2012). Contested complaint alleging a no-solicit and no-hiring agreement between eBay and Intuit. eBay ultimately settled via a consent decree following an Order denying its motion to dismiss.
• United States v. H&R Block/TaxACT (D.D.C. 2011). Contested litigation and trial involving the merger of two retail tax return preparation software providers.
• United States v. Google/ITA (D.D.C. 2011). Complaint and settlement requiring Google to continue to develop and license ITA’s QPX air travel software.
• Nasdaq/NYSE (2011). This proposed acquisition was abandoned after the Antitrust Division threatened to block the $10 billion deal.
• Google/Yahoo (2008). Yahoo and Google abandoned their advertising agreement after the Antitrust Division informed the companies that it would seek to block it.
• United States v. Oracle (N.D. Cal. 2004). Complaint and trial seeking to block Oracle’s cash tender offer for PeopleSoft, both leading providers of enterprise human relations and financial services software.
• United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Investigation and civil trial against Visa and MasterCard. Favorable judgment affirmed on appeal.
• Community Publishers v. Donrey Media, Inc. (W.D. Ark. 1995). Trial to block merger of two newspapers in Northwest Arkansas.

ChiefUnited States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Media, Entertainment & Communications Section2012–2021

Assistant ChiefUnited States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Networks & Technology Enforcement Section2004–2012

Trial AttorneyUnited States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division1995–2004

Associate, Howrey & Simon, 1990–1995

More

Thought Leadership

Recent Speaking Engagements

“Information Exchange Counseling in the Digital Age,” ABA Spring Meeting Panel, 2019

“Net Neutrality: Déjà vu or a New Era?,” ABA Spring Meeting Panel, 2018

“Barclays Select Series: Future of Sports,” Fireside Chat Interview, 2017

Memberships & Affiliations

American Bar Association, Antitrust Section

• Vice-Chair, Mergers & Acquisitions Committee, 2017–Present
• Vice-Chair, Media and Technology Committee, 2013–2016
• Vice-Chair, Insurance and Financial Services Committee, 2009–2013

National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA)

• Faculty: Deposition, 2009–2012
• Trial Advocacy, 2010

Franklin & Marshall College Board of Trustees, Alumnus Trustee 1996–2001

Franklin & Marshall College Alumni Association President 1995–1996

Credentials

Admissions & Qualifications

• District of Columbia
• Pennsylvania (inactive)

Courts

• United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Education

• Villanova University Charles Widger School of LawJ.D.1990
• Franklin & Marshall CollegeB.A., Government; Economics Minor1987

• 01 December 2021 Press Release DOJ’s Scott Scheele to Join Kirkland’s Antitrust Practice

Scott A. Scheele

scott.scheele@kirkland.com

More

Privacy Preference Center

Our practices and policies relating to the usage of cookies on the Website can be found in our Privacy Policy. You can confirm your Website cookie preferences through this interface. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. Blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. More information

Manage Consent Preferences

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.

Functional Cookies

Functional Cookies

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly.

Performance Cookies

Vendor Search

checkbox label label

Consent Leg.Interest

checkbox label label

checkbox label label

checkbox label label

We use cookies to improve your Website experience, provide additional security, and remember you when you return to the Website. By continuing to use this Website, you agree to the use of cookies. See our Privacy Policy to learn more about how we use cookies. Privacy Policy

Read More

The 9/11 Deadline and the Consultant

 HELP ME GET COMPENSATION!

COMMENTARY    December 16, 2003 Dow Jones WebReprint Service®      The 9/11 Deadline By JAY LEFKOWITZ On Dec. 22, 2003, the curtain will close on the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, an unprecedented federal program that provides an average of $1.7 million tax free to the families of each fallen victim. By that day, the relatives of approximately 3,000 individuals who perished in the attacks, as well as all those survivors who were injured, will have had to decide once and for all whether to take advantage of the federal government's offer of compensation. Enacted by Congress only 11 days after the attacks, the Fund was intended to shield the airlines from endless litigation, as well as to provide speedy compensation to the victims on a no-fault basis in a non-adversarial forum. While Congress had established other compensation programs in the past — for miners afflicted with Black Lung disease, for example, or workers exposed to dangerous levels of radiation — it had never before set up a program this generous, nor had it ever agreed to compensate victims of terror as a trade-off for access to the courts. Under any other set of circumstances, a program such as this might have been dead on arrival because trial lawyers would have howled that it was a form of "tort reform." Ironically, the Fund may ultimately serve as a prime example of a compensation program far superior to the traditional tort system. After all, in no mass disaster has our court system ever provided such prompt and substantial compensation to every single victim with a legitimate claim — and all without having trial lawyers skim 30%-50% off the top. * * * In establishing the Fund, Congress set only a few ground rules. To submit a claim, individuals must waive their right to sue any domestic entity in connection with the attacks; lawsuits against foreign terrorists or foreign governments harboring terrorists are not precluded. Claimants are then entitled to compensation based on their economic loss (income that would likely have been earned by a loved one had he not perished), and non-economic loss (pain and suffering). The law also requires that the total amount of money received by the claimants from other sources (such as life insurance proceeds) be subtracted from the Fund award. Beyond these general provisions, however, the Act gives enormous discretion to a Special Master appointed by the attorney general. Congress did not even set an outer limit on the total amount of money that the Special Master may expend. But in its attempt to deal humanely with an inhumane event, Congress raised as many vexing questions as it answered. Most importantly, should Congress have created a Fund limited to Sept. 11? The Fund does not cover the victims of the bombings at Oklahoma City or the African embassies, or the first attack on the World Trade Center. Nor does it offer to compensate citizens who are killed in future terrorist attacks. There are other questions: Should the government award a vastly different sum of money to the widower of a waitress than to the widower of a successful stockbroker? (Congress said yes, although it gave the Special Master discretion to set each award at a "fair" level.) Should every claimant receive the same amount for suffering, or should some family members, such as those who spent the last minutes talking to loved ones on cell phones, receive more? Should charitable contributions made to individual victims be deemed a collateral source if such a policy would have the effect of chilling charitable donations? Still other issues have arisen during the Fund's implementation: Is the appropriate claimant on behalf of a single victim the parents, who may not have seen their child in years, or the victim's fiancé, whose wedding was scheduled for early October? What about the competing claims of the ex-wife who is still caring for the victim's children versus the current wife or even the victim's same-sex partner? And how should the Fund deal with a claim filed by the widow of a foreign citizen or illegal alien? With approximately 3,000 fatalities, nearly every story is different and the law, necessarily drafted in haste, left many unanswered questions. Working within the broad discretion afforded him by Congress, and in close cooperation with the Department of Justice, Special Master Kenneth Feinberg has successfully navigated these challenging issues in an effort to be consistent and compassionate. The results speak for themselves. About 4,500 eligible claims have already been filed, about half of which are for death claims. Only 73 disqualifying lawsuits have been filed by individuals seeking redress against the airlines and other defendants. For the claims submitted, the awards for fatalities range from $250,000 to $7 million, and for physical injuries from just $500 to $7.9 million. But with Dec. 22 only days away, more than 700 families with death claims appear to have made no choice at all, largely because they are still grieving and cannot bring themselves to file a claim for compensation. Their grief is understandable. But inaction in the face of the Fund's deadline would be foolish. While no amount of compensation can ever fill their void, these families should think long and hard before passing up Congress's offer of substantial compensation. Mr. Lefkowitz headed the White House Domestic Policy Council before returning to law practice this Fall.

Return To Top

Sale of this WebReprint Service® Article Does Not Constitute Or Imply Any Endorsement Or Sponsorship Of Any Product, Service, Company Or Organization. REPRODUCTIONS REQUIRE FURTHER PERMISSION © 2004   Dow Jones & Company, Inc.    All Rights Reserved www.djreprints.com

Read More

Mark Philip and the PG&E and the highly flawed compliance investigation

 

mark.filip@kirkland.com

Chicago +1 312 862 2192

 

Washington, D.C. +1 202 389 5903

• PDF
 
• V

Practices

 

• Litigation
 
• Government, Regulatory & Internal Investigations
 
• International Risk & Investigations
 
• Trials
 
• Securities Litigation
 
• Class Action Litigation
 
• Crisis Response
 
• Workplace Compliance & Investigations — #MeToo
 
• Environmental

Mark Filip, a former federal judge and high-ranking Justice Department official, helps to lead Kirkland’s government enforcement defense and internal investigations group, and serves as a member of the Firm’s Executive Committee. As a partner in the Firm’s Chicago and Washington, D.C. offices, Mark has successfully guided numerous Fortune 100 companies and financial institutions through complex mission-critical moments, counseling leaders and Boards of Directors on high-stakes matters at the intersection of litigation, public policy, and reputation. He is a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Mark has deep experience in both private practice and in government service, having served as a federal judge for the Northern District of Illinois and at the highest levels of government, including as Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Among various Fortune 100 companies and financial institutions, his clients span across a broad array of industries including healthcare, energy, defense contracting, manufacturing, media, professional sports, mining, agricultural production, and gaming.

In his public representations, Mark has helped many of the world’s leading businesses resolve significant disputes with government authorities, including: 

• BP, in relation to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill;
• Goldman Sachs, in relation to its Malaysian 1MDB bond offerings;
• Boeing, in relation to allegations concerning its 737 Max airplane;
• J.P. Morgan Chase, in relation to allegations of market manipulation and “spoofing”; and
• GM, in relation to allegations regarding ignition switches in its automobiles.

Mark has represented well-known individuals and major corporations, and has successfully resolved disputes with government authorities including: the Department of Justice; Securities and Exchange Commission; Federal Trade Commission; Department of Labor; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Defense; Department of Homeland Security; Congress; Federal Reserve; New York Department of Financial Services; state attorneys general; and foreign regulators.

Many of Mark’s representations involve “crisis management” situations with substantial media, congressional, law enforcement, and regulatory scrutiny, as well as related civil litigation. Mark’s practice also includes a broad securities practice for clients in a variety of industries.

Mark also leads internal investigations for a wide array of boards and companies, across industries, issues ranging from financial and accounting practices to #metoo allegations, and countries around the world. He has also represented numerous special board committees convened in response to shareholder demands.

Mark has an active civil practice, including particularly in the area of class action defense. For example, he represents Allergan in expansive class action and Multi-District Litigation (MDL) litigation concerning its manufacture and sale of opioid products. Mark has substantial experience with the federal MDL process, and he has served as a judge in class action matters during his tenure on the federal bench, and as an advocate in such cases in private practice.

Prior to joining Kirkland, Mark worked at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he served as Deputy Attorney General of the United States after being unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate. As Deputy Attorney General, Mark was second-in-command of the Justice Department and oversaw all of its criminal and civil enforcement efforts. He also represented the Justice Department in its interactions with Congress, the White House, other cabinet-level Departments, and numerous foreign governments. Mark served as Acting Attorney General after the inauguration of President Obama, until U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was confirmed.

Prior to serving as Deputy Attorney General, Mark spent four years as a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois after being confirmed 96–0 by the U.S. Senate. During his time as a trial judge in Chicago, Mark presided over a full docket of federal cases, including lawsuits concerning intellectual property disputes, securities law, criminal law, antitrust issues, employment and sexual harassment laws, and a wide variety of commercial and property disputes.

Early in his career, Mark served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago, where he prosecuted a variety of criminal cases, including political, judicial, and police corruption, and financial and tax fraud.

Read More

Mark Filip will serve as Compliance and Ethics Monitor

 U.S. Attorneys » Northern District of California » News

SHARE

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Northern District of California

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, February 27, 2017

Former Deputy Attorney General Selected As Corporate Monitor Over Pacific Gas And Electric Company

Mark Filip will serve as Compliance and Ethics Monitor

SAN FRANCISCO—  Former Acting Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice Mark Filip, now a Chicago-based partner with the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, has been jointly selected by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to serve as Compliance and Ethics Monitor of PG&E.  On January 26, 2017, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, Senior United States District Judge, ordered PG&E to submit to a five-year period of monitorship as a condition of the company’s probation following its five felony convictions for willful violations of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act.  The jury also convicted PG&E of corruptly obstructing the federal investigation of the 2010 gas transmission line explosion in San Bruno.  Mr. Filip previously served as a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, as well as an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. 
 

Topic(s): 

Office and Personnel Updates

Component(s): 

USAO - California, Northern

Read More