Scott Morrison is a managing associate in the Employment Law Practice Group at Orrick's Orange County office. He defends employers in all aspects of employment litigation in state and federal court and counsels on employment policies and practices that comply with applicable state and federal laws.
Scott's professional passion is to defend employers in complex wage and hour class actions and representative lawsuits filed under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) statute, and he has extensive experience doing so. He has represented clients in the tech, insurance, airline, airline service, retail, healthcare, and grocery industries, among others, at all litigation phases.
Scott recognizes that industry nuances means there is no one-size-fits-all approach to wage-and-hour defense. His broad experience has enabled him to identify opportunities to use industry idiosyncrasies to his clients' advantage. Scott's litigation experience includes leading fact investigations, discovery management, drafting dispositive motions, brief writing, and pre-trial dispute resolution.
In addition to his wage-and-hour experience, Scott has defended clients against claims of wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under state and federal laws. He also frequently counsels employers on various employment issues including complex federal and California laws regarding the proper calculation of the regular rate of pay, leave protections and entitlement, wage and hour compliance, exempt vs. non-exempt classifications, and others.
Before practicing law, Scott clerked in Las Vegas for The Honorable Jennifer Dorsey of the District of Nevada. Scott earned his Juris Doctor degree from the Pepperdine University School of Law, where he was an Associate Editor of the Pepperdine Law Review, teaching assistant for Advanced Legal Writing, and member of the Trial Advocacy Team.
Scott is an avid snowboarder and enjoys spending time with his husband and their three dogs, Apollo, Atlas, and Riley.
The collapse of Lehman Brothers was a pivotal moment which had catastrophic effects on the European financial sector which are still reverberating. Inadequacies in banking regulation were highlighted as most jurisdictions had few (if any) specific laws which covered the peculiarities of the banking sector. Documentation and legislation was tested and often found wanting by the courts. The stresses have acted as a catalyst for change in practices, regulation and documentation.
In order to fill the lacuna in statutory tools available to European governments and central banks to deal with failing financial institutions, many European jurisdictions have enacted new legislation. The legislation adopted differs between various jurisdictions within Europe and in some cases the tools at the disposal of the appropriate governing bodies of such jurisdictions are relatively limited.
Six years on after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the European banking sector is back in the spotlight after a certain amount of turmoil over the first half of 2014. The European banking sector still has its vulnerabilities. The introduction of a comprehensive set of tools which enable relevant authorities to take early and decisive action in relation to failing financial institutions is therefore imperative.
This common framework across the European Union will be provided by the European Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (“BRRD”) which was adopted by the European Parliament on 15 April 2014. This client alert in the Legacy of Lehman series considers the key terms of the BRRD and the impact it may have in relation to the financial industry. Read More.
Faced with huge losses in the subprime mortgage market, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (the ultimate parent of the Lehman group) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on 15 September 2008, a momentous event which shortly preceded the collapse and break-up of that group, including the filing for administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe), the main operating subsidiary for the UK and Europe.
Looking back from the perspective of the sixth anniversary of the collapse, its consequences still occupy the English courts with numerous decided, settled, on-going and forthcoming cases. This client update is the first in a series describing and analysing the legal legacy of the Lehman collapse by looking at subsequent changes to financial industry regulation in the UK and across Europe to address the shortcomings highlighted by Lehman’s collapse and also considers certain key pieces of Lehman-related litigation in the English courts and the principles which resulted from those cases. Read More.
The Bank of Portugal announced on Sunday 3 August 2014 that it applied its powers under the Decree law No 31/2012 of 10 February 2012 (the “Resolution Law“) to split Banco Espirito Santo (“BES“) into a “good bank” and “bad bank” (the “Restructuring“) and to transfer certain of BES “good” assets and liabilities to “Novo Bank”.
Following the release by BES of its half year results, it was apparent that the financial stability of BES was more questionable than many had suspected. A rapid decline in BES’s share and subordinated bond price followed and on the weekend of 2 and 3 August, the Bank of Portugal must have come to the conclusion that its earlier plea for a private sector recapitalisation was unrealistic. On 3 August, the Bank of Portugal publicly announced the split which left certain assets with BES, which also retained the subordinated debt. The senior bonds and many of the quality assets of BES were transferred to Novo Bank.
In view of the European Central Bank’s ongoing asset quality review, the BES case was seen as a test case in Europe. This client alert looks at some of the recent history of the Espirito Santo group and BES and considers what will happen in the aftermath of the nationalisation of BES and following the filing by certain Espirito Santo holding companies for controlled management (gestion contrôlée) in Luxembourg. Specifically, this client alert considers:-
the background and recent history relating to BES and the Espirito Santo group;
the limited legislative tools available to the Bank of Portugal under the Resolution Law;
what the effects of the use of the Resolution Law will have on BES stakeholders; and
what the next steps are likely to be in relation to Espirito Santo International (“ESI“), Rio Forte Investments (“Rio Forte“) Espirito Santo Financière SA (“ESFIL“) and Espirito Santo Financial Group (“ESFG“) that have filed for a controlled management process in Luxembourg.
