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

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

Eighth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Statutory Damages Claim

Publications

August 9, 2013

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected the argument that a plaintiff who seeks statutory damages for only an "informational injury" is constitutionally prohibited from asserting his claim. The decision in Charvat v. Mutual First Federal Credit Union reversed the district court's prior dismissal of the lawsuit, which involved the statutory requirement (recently revoked by Congress) that ATM machines contain both on-screen and on-machine notice of a transaction fee.

The Eight Circuit's decision is important because it follows the interesting saga of First American Financial v. Edwards, a case that raised the same issue, which was briefed and argued in the U.S. Supreme Court during the October 2011 Term. The decision by the Court to grant review in First American, a case involving a statutory damages claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, generated intense speculation because of its potential effect on private litigation under a number of consumer financial protection statutes. That speculation reached a feverish pitch, at least in consumer financial litigation circles, when the Court postponed its decision until the last day of the Term. That morning, just before the Court rendered its decisions in the Affordable Care Act cases, the Court announced that it was dismissing First American because it had "improvidently granted review," a procedure the Court uses to punt cases when they are determined not to require constitutional interpretation or, as a practical matter, when the justices are unable to reach agreement on the outcome.

After First American, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court may yet be interested in deciding the limits of Congress' power to create private lawsuits for informational injuries in statues such as the RESPA and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Charvat is the most recent decision in what is likely to be an increased number of cases in which defendants seek to advance this argument under a variety of consumer financial statutes. As these cases reach the federal appellate courts, and as the potential grows for conflicts among circuit courts, we will know whether this standing argument actually has legs.

If you have any questions about the content of this alert, please contact one of the authors listed above or any of the FCRA team members.


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.