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 Comments on Dealing with an Arbitrator Who is Believed to be Biased


April 29, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini commented on the case of Moors & Cabot, Inc. vs. Dever in which the court denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding that the party challenging the award waived his right to claim arbitrator bias by failing to seek recusal of the arbitrator at issue during the course of the arbitration proceeding. 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.

Moors & Cabot, Inc. vs. Dever, No. SUCV2014-02129 A (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., 2/17/15)

Courts generally will not grant vacatur based on alleged arbitrator bias that the party seeking vacatur did not fully develop before the arbitrators.
Courts will not second-guess an arbitration panel's evidentiary decisions or thought process.

This case arises out of a vigorously contested arbitration brought by a financial advisor (Dever) against his former firm and individuals associated with the firm (Foley and Joyce). Dever's allegations included wrongful termination and defamation in the firm's U5 disclosure. Foley counterclaimed, alleging that Dever defamed him in the broker comment section of his U4 by claiming that Foley introduced firm clients to a private placement penny stock company without the firm’s knowledge and then threatened and attempted to bribe Dever when Dever confronted him about his actions. Both Dever and Foley sought damages and expungement of the disclosures. After a lengthy hearing, the Panel denied all of Dever's claims, awarded Foley $75,000 for defamation and granted the request to expunge Dever's U4 comments (FINRA #11-04672 (Boston, 7/1/14)). The firm, Foley and Joyce moved to confirm the Award, and Dever moved to vacate. Applying well-settled law that judicial review of arbitration Awards is extremely narrow, the Court confirms the Award.

First, Dever claimed bias by one of the arbitrators, based on events at an earlier proceeding before a different arbitration panel on which the arbitrator sat. Dever, a witness in the case, alleged that he and the arbitrator had "a confrontation outside of a bathroom" because Dever supplied information that led to another arbitrator's recusal. Dever argued to the Court that this event created an "incapacitating bias" in the arbitrator against Dever in the present case. The Court notes that, when Dever's counsel raised concerns to the panelist at the start of the hearing, the latter affirmed that his prior experience would not impact his objectivity. Dever did not, however, seek recusal of the arbitrator and did not raise the bathroom incident, later claiming to be "too frightened" to tell his attorney about it. The Court questions Dever's failure to fully develop his bias claim at the arbitration hearing when he had the opportunity to do so and finds that that failure amounts to a waiver of the right to raise them now in support of his vacatur request.

The Court next considers Dever's argument that the panel improperly admitted a FINRA no action letter into evidence. Dever alleged to FINRA that Foley was engaged in a criminal enterprise. FINRA issued a no action letter at the conclusion of its investigation. FINRA's letter noted that it had no evidentiary weight in any arbitration or judicial proceeding, but also stated that it could be introduced into evidence in a later proceeding if, in that proceeding, an opposing party made representations inconsistent with the letter. While the Court questions whether the exception permitting admissibility actually existed in the arbitration, the Court declines to second-guess the panel's evidentiary ruling. Instead, the Court finds that its admission was of no consequence and does not come close to the kind of misconduct or corruption to warrant vacatur.

Finally, the Court examines Dever's claim that the Award was procured through fraud. Dever argued that Foley presented false income information to support his damages claim. The Court declines to second-guess the panel's thought process, stating that Dever had the opportunity to challenge the proof at the hearing and that, in any event, it was not clear that the panel based its damages award solely on Foley's income, as opposed to reputational harm or emotional distress. 

A party who feels an arbitrator is biased against him sits in the unenviable position of further alienating the arbitrator(s) by asking for recusal or facing a waiver argument if he remains silent and only later raises the issue when trying to vacate an adverse award. Sometimes the choice is easy; but in close calls, the party should, at a minimum, state his concerns fully on the record and proceed under protest.

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.