Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Sylvia Yi's previous work at the Department of Homeland Security prepare her for working with government contractors at Bass, Berry & Sims? Find out more>


Close X


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.

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

FCPA: 2016 Year in Review & 2017 Enforcement Predictions

A review of trends and developments in FCPA as well as a look ahead into what to expect for 2017. This report aims at providing corporate leaders and companies with the knowledge they need to comply with the FCPA and avoid litigation in 2017.

Read now

Chris Lazarini Provides Insight on 12(b)(6) Dismissal of Complaint Alleging Material Omissions from Registration Statement


March 23, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed the decision in Medina vs. Tremor Video, Inc., in which the court dismissed a complaint for failing to allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that was plausible on its face. 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.

Medina vs. Tremor Video, Inc., No. 13-cv-8364 (S.D.N.Y. 3/5/15) 

A complaint that fails to allege enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs purchased common stock traceable to Defendants' June 2013 Form S-1 Registration Statement and IPO. In a November 2013 press release and conference call, Defendants reduced their revenue forecast and stock prices fell. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs brought this class action, alleging that Defendants' Registration Statement contained material errors and omissions in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs theorized that the negative facts disclosed by Defendants in November 2013 were material "trends or uncertainties" that they knew early enough to disclose in the June 2013 Registration Statement. Granting Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court examines each of Plaintiff's core allegations in turn.

Plaintiffs' first allegation is that Defendants should have disclosed that two of the five major television networks delayed making their upfront advertising purchases by two weeks. The Court finds that, even if Defendants knew of the delay, Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly infer that the delay was a "trend or uncertainty" that should have been disclosed. The allegation is undercut by the annual variations in the timing of the major networks' upfront advertising purchases. Plaintiffs also fail to plead facts demonstrating that the two-week delay was material; they merely speculate that potential stock purchasers might have delayed their purchases if they knew of the delay. But such speculation, without facts indicating that, prior to the release of the Registration Statement, Defendants knew that the delay would adversely affect their business, is insufficient to plausibly infer that a reasonable investor would have considered the two-week delay significant.

Plaintiffs' second allegation is that Defendants should have disclosed that their customers were increasingly resistant to performance-level pricing, instead trending toward lower margin demographic-based pricing. Plaintiffs claim the failure to disclose this trend was a material omission because it could lead to lower profit margins for Defendants. The Court finds the complaint to be devoid of any facts supporting the inference that Defendants were aware of this alleged "trend or uncertainty" and, therefore, determines that the claim is, once again, too speculative.

Plaintiffs' third allegation is that Defendants should have disclosed that they lacked programmatic video offerings and were losing sales to competitors. The Court deems this two-sentence allegation plainly insufficient to give rise to any inferences that the lack of programmatic video offerings was a known trend or uncertainty that should have been disclosed.

The Court adds that, even accepting the materiality of the "trends and uncertainties" cited by Plaintiffs, the complaint must be dismissed because the allegedly untrue or misleading statements were either forward-looking statements accompanied by both general and specific cautionary statements which, when read in their entirety, bespoke caution, or were non-actionable statements of historical fact. Finally, because Plaintiffs fail to allege facts to support their Section 11 claims, the Court has no trouble dismissing Plaintiffs' Section 15 control person claims as well.

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.