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

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

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

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.