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 >

Chris Lazarini Comments on Potential Respondeat Superior Liability in a Selling Away Case

Publications

September 16, 2014

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed the summary judgment ruling in favor of Defendants in the recent Taddeo v. Bodanza selling away case for Securities Litigation Commentator. The case, affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals, considered the broker/dealer's potential liability under a theory of respondeat superior. 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.

Taddeo vs. Bodanza, No. 100704, 2014 Ohio 3719 (Ohio App., 8Dist., 8/28/14)

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirms summary judgment in favor of all Defendants in this selling away case. In January 2004, Plaintiff opened two securities accounts with Defendant Bodanza. At the time, Bodanza was a registered representative of Defendant O.N. Equity Sales Company ("ONESCO"). His local office was called Preferred Financial Services, Inc. ("PFS"). Defendant Takacs was also a registered representative of ONESCO working out of the same PFS office as Bodanza. In 2006, Bodanza formed Preferred Financial Holdings, Inc. ("PFH"), an oil and gas drilling company. When ONESCO refused to allow Bodanza to raise capital for PFH, Bodanza resigned from ONESCO and surrendered his securities license. In 2007, Bodanza told Taddeo that he had surrendered his securities license and that his ONESCO accounts had been converted to house accounts. He then solicited an investment in the PFH oil and gas venture. Taddeo believed that he had purchased bonds issued by PFH when, in fact, he had purchased promissory notes. Takacs, who was still registered with ONESCO and still working out of the PFS office, went to Taddeo's house to get his signature on the PFH documents and pick up the checks payable to PFH.

In 2010, PFH defaulted on the notes. Thereafter, Taddeo filed suit in state court against ONESCO, Bodanza, Takacs, PFH, PFS and others. Following discovery, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. Affirming, the Court of Appeals summarily overrules five of Plaintiff's six assignments of error on grounds that Plaintiff failed to cite legal authorities in support of his arguments, failed to link his arguments to viable causes of action and/or simply failed to make supporting arguments. On the lone remaining issue, the Court finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists that would allow Plaintiff to defeat summary judgment on his claim that ONESCO was liable for Bodanza's actions under a theory of respondeat superior. 

The case seems to turn on the fact that Bodanza disclosed to Plaintiff that he was no longer affiliated with ONESCO before soliciting the investment in his oil and gas venture. While this may well have been the key dispositive fact, one has to wonder if the outcome would have been the same had the case been filed with FINRA, where Defendants could not have filed their summary judgment motions and would have been forced to take the matter through a full hearing to make their arguments.


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.