Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

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.

CLARCOR
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

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Analyzes Common Law Fraud Claims Under Rule 9(b)

Publications

May 13, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed the decision in HSN Nordbank AG & HSH Nordbank Securities S.A. vs. RBS Holdings USA, Inc. & RBS Securities, Inc., in which the court examined Plaintiffs' common law fraud claims under the particularity standard of Rule 9(b). 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.

HSN Nordbank AG & HSH Nordbank Securities S.A. vs. RBS Holdings USA, Inc. & RBS Securities, Inc., No. 13 Civ. 3303 (S.D. N.Y., 3/20/15) 

Common law fraud allegations must be pled with particularity and must give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent, which may be established by showing that defendant had the motive and opportunity to commit fraud or by alleging facts that constitute strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

Plaintiffs brought this action against RBS Holdings and its subsidiaries, alleging various improprieties in connection with Defendants' creation, offering, and sale of certain residential mortgage-backed securities. Plaintiffs alleged claims of common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation and a right to rescission based on mutual mistake. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court dismisses the claims of negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment because Plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating the existence of a fiduciary or other special relationship with Defendants imposing a duty on Defendants to disclose material information. The Court also dismisses the rescission claim, finding that the complaint focused on forward looking statements in the offering materials. The doctrine of mutual mistake applies only where the parties were mistaken as to facts existing at the time the contract was executed.

The Court examines Plaintiffs' common law fraud claims under the particularity standard of Rule 9(b), judging whether Plaintiffs alleged facts that constitute strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness. The Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to raise a strong inference that Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that third party loan originators were systematically overstating appraisal values and owner-occupancy rates and dismisses those allegations. In contrast, the Court finds that Plaintiffs raised strong inferences that Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that loan originators had abandoned their underwriting guidelines and that credit ratings had been overstated such that Plaintiffs could move forward with those claims. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs adequately pled the materiality of the alleged misrepresentations regarding underwriting guidelines and credit ratings and Plaintiffs' justifiable reliance on the offering materials. Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfied their burden of pleading loss causation at this stage of the proceeding, leaving the question of how the credit crisis impacted the values of the RMBS for decision after the record is complete.


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.