Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Learn about Richard Arnholt's diverse government contracts practice and why he chose to pursue a career in the legal field. Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2017, Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ: PNFP) closed a $1.9 billion merger with BNC Bancorp (NASDAQ: BNCN) pursuant to which BNC merged with and into Pinnacle. With the completion of the transaction, Pinnacle becomes a Top 50 U.S. Bank. The merger will create a four state footprint concentrated in 12 of the largest urban markets in the Southeast. 

Bass, Berry & Sims has served Pinnacle as primary corporate and securities counsel for more than 15 years and served as counsel on the transaction. Our attorneys were involved in all aspects related to the agreement, including tax, employee benefits and litigation. 

Read more details about the transaction here.

Pinnacle Financial Partners logo

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

Court of Appeals Interprets Tennessee's Current Deficiency Judgment Statute

Publications

February 1, 2013

The ability to recover the full amount of a loan deficiency after foreclosure requires careful attention by lenders. The Tennessee Court of Appeals, in Greenbank v. Sterling Ventures, LLC, (Dec. 7, 2012), recently interpreted Tennessee's statute, adopted in 2010, governing deficiency judgments following a foreclosure sale. The statute provides borrowers a greater chance of minimizing the deficiency judgment than the prior law. The statute directs courts to use the foreclosure sale price in its deficiency determination, unless the borrower proves that the property sold for "materially less" than the property’s actual "fair market value." Prior to the 2010 amendment, borrowers had to prove that the sale price was "grossly inadequate" compared to the fair market value. If a borrower is successful, the court decides the fair market value to credit the indebtedness.

The Court decided there was no intent of the legislature to abandon the presumption that the sale price represents fair market value. Although the new statute is "more consumer friendly," the standard continues to require "a pretty substantial difference" between the foreclosure price and the fair market value. Additionally, "fair market value" under the statute was intended to reflect the property's condition on the sale date and the context of the sale. Thus, the type of appraisal and the conditions and terms of the sale are critical to the fair market value determination.

To maximize deficiency judgments and minimize legal proceedings: (a) appraisals should reflect liquidation value as of the date of foreclosure; (b) a lender should maintain a record of pre-foreclosure information relevant to the property's value, including any efforts to sell or market the property; and (c) a foreclosure/auction sale should be considered for certain properties. In planning its course of action, the terms of the appraisals should be carefully considered, as well as any additional variables that could affect the fair market value.


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.