Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Brianna Powell's work as a law clerk prepare her for practicing law? Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

U.S. Green Building Council Sued Over LEED Certification System

Publications

February 11, 2011

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has been sued in United States District Court in New York by a putative class of plaintiffs claiming that USGBC engages in false and misleading advertising in connection with its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification system. The plaintiffs are non-LEED accredited design and construction professionals who advise real estate developers and other clients on the design and construction of energy efficient buildings. The plaintiffs claim they are losing business because false and misleading information disseminated by USGBC causes consumers to utilize LEED accredited professionals who provide advice about obtaining LEED certification, mistakenly believing that such professionals will deliver a building that is verified by a third party to be more energy-efficient than a building that plaintiffs would provide. According to the suit, "USGBC’s false advertisements mislead the consumer into believing that obtaining LEED certification incorporates construction techniques that achieve energy-efficiency."

The plaintiffs point to certain statements by USGBC that they contend are false, including that LEED-certified buildings perform, on average, "25-30% better than non-[LEED] certified buildings in terms of energy-use," and that LEED "provid[es] third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most." According to the plaintiffs, USGBC’s own study data indicate that, on average, LEED-certified buildings use 41 percent more energy than non-LEED buildings, and LEED does not verify that buildings are energy efficient because applicants essentially "self-certify" with no site investigation by USGBC.

The suit includes claims for false advertising, deceptive trade practices and unfair competition. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, including all profit derived from the allegedly unlawful conduct by USGBC (the suit states that USGBC reported revenues of $64 million in 2008). The suit also seeks an injunction requiring USGBC to cease dissemination of the allegedly false and misleading information, to issue corrective advertising and literature, and to disclose the actual energy use of LEED-certified properties. The disclosure element would require all LEED-certified properties to upload utility bills into a publicly accessible online database, once a year, for ten years following certification.

The case is Gifford v. U.S. Green Building Council, No. 10-cv-7747-LBS (S.D.N.Y. amended complaint filed Feb. 7, 2010).


Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.