Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


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 Comments on Potential Respondeat Superior Liability in a Selling Away Case


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


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.