Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jessie Zeigler anticipate the intersection of privacy and smart technology will impact the future of litigation? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

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

GDPR Top 5 Actions You Should Take Now

The EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect on May 25th. As most organizations are aware, the GDPR applies not only to EU businesses but also many companies in the U.S. While the deadline is quickly approaching, most organizations are still grappling with the implications of the regulation on their business. Even if your readiness efforts are behind the curve, the GDPR Top 5 Actions You Should Take NOW will help you begin your efforts towards compliance and help mitigate your organization's risk in the short-term.

Click here to download the checklist.

Chris Lazarini Comments on Amending Arbitration Awards to Correct Technical Errors


February 9, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided commentary on the decision in Franskousky vs. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC in which the court affirmed an Amended Award that had been challenged by the Plaintiff after the panel corrected an error in the original award. Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). 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 SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Franskousky vs. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 314-cv-878 (M.D. Fla., 12/ 17/14)

Under FINRA Rule 13905, a party may file a motion seeking to have the panel correct typographical, computational or other non-substantive mistakes in an Award; alternatively, the party may request that a court of competent jurisdiction give effect to the intent of the arbitrators, correct these types of errors under Section 11 of the FAA, and confirm the Award.

Plaintiff, a former Morgan Stanley broker, sought to vacate a FINRA arbitration Award in favor of Morgan Stanley on two promissory notes (FINRA ID #11-01964 (Jacksonville, 6/16/14)). The Award included a statement that Plaintiff had withdrawn counterclaims based on breach of contract, unpaid wages, negligence and fraud. There was no dispute among the parties that this was in error. In fact, Plaintiff had pursued those claims during the arbitration, and had withdrawn only a statutorily-based whistleblower claim. In separate filings with FINRA, Morgan Stanley requested that the Award be amended pursuant to either FINRA Rule 13905 or the provisions of the Florida Arbitration Code. Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers. FINRA's Director of Arbitration accepted the motions, delivered them to the arbitrators and an Amended Award correcting the Panel's mistake was issued (ID #11-01964 (Jacksonville, 8/7/14)).

Prior to the issuance of the Amended Award, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate in state court and Morgan Stanley removed the matter to federal court. Plaintiff argued that both arbitration Awards should be vacated, claiming that the defects in the original Award showed that the panel failed to consider claims properly presented to it and that the Amended Award was a substantive change not permitted under FINRA Rules. Morgan Stanley argued that the Amended Award should be confirmed because the panel properly corrected a simple mistake it had made in describing the procedural history of the case. Alternatively, Morgan Stanley posed that, even if the Panel had exceeded its authority in amending the original Award, the Court should correct the panel's mistake under the Section 11 of the FAA.

The Court agrees with Morgan Stanley and confirms the Amended Award. FINRA Rule 13905 prohibits parties from submitting documents to the panel after a case has been closed, except in limited circumstances, including where a party timely requests that "typographical or computational errors, or mistakes in the description of any person or property referred to in the award" be corrected. The Court finds that Morgan Stanley was acting within the parameters of the Rule in asking that the Panel correct the portion of the Award discussing the claims and evidence presented to it. The Court rejects the concept that the amendment was a substantive change to the Award, noting that Morgan Stanley did not submit new evidence or new arguments to the panel and did not ask the panel to rule on issues not presented to it during the hearing. Similarly, the Court finds that neither FINRA's Director of Arbitration nor the Panel exceeded their authority in accepting and acting upon Morgan Stanley's request. The Court notes that an argument could be made that Plaintiff waived his right to object to the Amended Award when he elected not to oppose Morgan Stanley's FINRA filings. Further, the Court stales that the Panel's interpretations of the Rule are binding on the parties and, even if the Panel had been wrong in its understanding of Rule 13905, that error would not be grounds for vacatur. Finally, the Court finds that, even if the Panel had exceeded its authority in issuing the Amended Award, the Court has the authority under Section 11 of the FAA to amend the original Award to give effect to the arbitrators' intent and promote justice, and does so.

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.