Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg 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

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Authors Article on Forum Selection Clauses and FINRA Arbitration

Publications

September 5, 2014

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini wrote an analysis of the recent Second Circuit decision involving the interplay between forum selection clauses and FINRA Rules that was published by the Securities Litigation Commentator. The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the Securities Litigation Commentator, please click here to sign up for the newsletter.

Goldman Sachs & Co. vs. Golden Empire Schools Financing Authority, Nos. 13-797 & 13-2247 (2nd Cir., 8/21/14)

In separate actions, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., sought to enjoin FINRA arbitrations that had been commenced against them by issuers of auction rate securities ("ARS"). In both cases, the parties had entered into broker-dealer agreements containing forum selection clauses directing that "all actions and proceedings" arising out of the transactions "shall be brought" in the Southern District of New York. The contracts also contained merger clauses stating that the agreements constituted the entire agreement between the parties. When the issuers commenced FINRA arbitrations alleging that they had been defrauded into issuing the ARS, Goldman and Citigroup filed court actions and successfully enjoined the arbitrations.

On appeal, the Second Circuit first notes that it has jurisdiction over the appeals because the "underlying substantive controversies" in each case involved claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (federal question) and because the parties were diverse and the matters in controversy exceeded $75,000 (diversity). Next, the Court concludes that the district court in New York had authority to enjoin both of the arbitrations. With respect to the Citigroup matter, the arbitration of which was sitused in North Carolina, the Court notes that it is well settled that a district court may enjoin an arbitration proceeding outside of its own district.

Turning to the issue of arbitrability, the Court considers whether the parties' all inclusive forum selection clauses superseded FINRA Rule 12200, which requires member firms to arbitrate a dispute at the insistence of a customer if the "dispute arises in connection with the business activities of the member." Noting the split of authority between the Ninth Circuit (holding that forum selection clauses supersede Rule 12200) and Fourth Circuit (holding that forum selection clauses do not supersede Rule 12200), the Second Circuit determined that, under its own precedent, an "all-inclusive and mandatory" forum selection clause supersedes the FINRA rule if the clause "specifically precludes" arbitration. The Court stops short of requiring that the clause specifically mention arbitration.

The Court rejects the issuers' argument that the broker-dealer agreements do not cover the entire relationship of the parties, finding that the agreements clearly include the ARS issuances because they apply to "any actions and proceedings arising out of . . . any of the transactions contemplated" by the agreement. The Court also rejects the argument that arbitrations are not "proceedings" within the meaning of the forum selection clauses, noting that arbitrations "are regularly described as 'proceedings'" by, among others, the United States Supreme Court, the Second Circuit, New York state courts and FINRA's Rules.

The parties must be careful to use compulsory language in the forum selection clause or they run the risk that a reviewing court may find the clause to be an either/or option and one party or the other may find itself an unwilling participant in an arbitration.


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.