Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
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

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Supreme Court Decision Favors Arbitration Clauses in Bank Deposit Agreements

Publications

October 18, 2012

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion sent a resounding message in favor of arbitration clauses and class action waivers in consumer contracts.1 The high Court strengthened that message for banks last week by declining to review rulings enforcing arbitration clauses in bank deposit agreements.2

Buffington v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. and Hough v. Regions Fin. Corp. are part of a wave of class action litigation across the country challenging banks' processing order for debit card and ATM transactions and the effect that processing order has on customers' overdraft fees.3 SunTrust and Regions were swept into a massive multidistrict litigation proceeding in the Southern District of Florida in which the court has issued several plaintiff-friendly decisions. The district court continued its trend in favor of plaintiffs by denying SunTrust's and Regions' motions to compel arbitration. Both banks appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, finding that the banks' arbitration clauses were enforceable and applicable. The court noted that The Federal Arbitration Act reflects a "liberal federal policy favoring arbitrations," providing that arbitration agreements "shall be . . . enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for [their] revocation."4 The court rejected arguments that the specific arbitration clauses at issue were either procedurally or substantively unconscionable, finding that the clauses were consistent with Georgia law, were not particularly one-sided and were conspicuous.

By declining to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision in favor of the banks' arbitration agreements, the Supreme Court has effectively confirmed that the liberal federal policy in favor of arbitration applies to consumer contracts. Banks should review their deposit agreements to determine whether to include arbitration clauses and class action waivers, and if so, how those clauses should be worded. Our financial institutions attorneys are experienced in drafting these clauses and representing banks in court proceedings, arbitrations and regulatory proceedings.


1 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1745 (2011).
2 Buffington v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., No. 12-146, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 7890 (Oct. 9, 2012); Hough v. Regions Fin. Corp., No. 12-139, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 7880 (Oct. 9, 2012).
3 In re Checking Account Overdraft Litg., 459 Fed. Appx. 855 (11th Cir. 2012); Hough v. Regions Fin. Corp., 672 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2012).
4 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2012).


Related Professionals

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.