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

Labor Talk Blog: Delay in Supreme Court Review of D.R. Horton Continues to Cost Employers Enforcing Arbitration Agreements

Publications

March 12, 2014

Readers of our series of posts on D.R. Horton will recall our prediction that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) would continue its attacks on certain arbitration agreements. As predicted, the NLRB's administrative law judges (ALJ) continue to strike down any arbitration agreements that waive class or collective action claims and allow arbitration of only individual claims. The ALJs consistently find that such agreements violate employees' Section 7 rights to engage in protected concerted activity.

Most recently, in Network Capital Funding Corp. (March 5, 2014) , another ALJ found an arbitration agreement violated Section 7 not on the agreement's language, but rather based on the employer's attempted enforcement. There, the employer argued that due to the silence in the arbitration agreement on whether or not class or collective claims were allowed, the agreement allowed for only individual, not class arbitration. On that basis, the employer opposed the former employee's attempt to pursue class relief in arbitration. The ALJ ruled, based on D.R. Horton, that since the employer took that position in the arbitration proceedings, then the agreement violated Section 7.

The employer argued to the ALJ that numerous federal circuit courts had rejected the Board's substantive reasoning in D.R. Horton. The ALJ explained that he was bound by NLRB precedent (i.e., the D.R. Horton ruling) until the U.S. Supreme Court or the Board itself said otherwise.

So, while D.R. Horton continues to languish in the appeal process, employers continue to face the costs – and the headaches – of trying to enforce arbitration agreements that provide for only individual arbitrations, or that are enforced as such. These costs and headaches continue even though virtually every circuit court to consider the issue has rejected the Board's substantive reasoning in D.R. Horton.

So, one might ask, what incentive does this current NLRB have to rush an appeal to the current U.S. Supreme Court? Not much.

For more Labor and Employment information, visit www.BassBerryLaborTalk.com.

Related Post:

Supreme Court Says a Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement is Enforceable


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.