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 Provides Insight on the Protocol for Broker Recruiting


June 29, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on the importance of following the Protocol for Broker Recruiting when brokers change firms. 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.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. & J. P. Morgan Securities, LLC vs. Wirtanen, No. 15-11929 (E.D. Mich., 6/3/15)

A failure to follow the Protocol for Broker Recruiting when it is available as a safe haven to a broker changing firms will almost assuredly lead to injunctive relief, and possibly monetary damages, should the losing firm elect to take action against its former broker. 

This preliminary injunctive action involves two brokers leaving one Protocol firm, J.P. Morgan Securities, and joining another, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. Here, however, the brokers did not follow the Protocol. Instead, as asserted in their affidavits, the brokers used client cell phone numbers stored in their own cell phones and publicly available information to "announce" to clients that they had moved to Morgan Stanley. J.P. Morgan alleged that the brokers misappropriated confidential and proprietary information and breached their one-year non-solicitation agreements and asked the Court to enjoin the brokers from soliciting customers pending FINRA arbitration.

The Court agrees that it should consider the merits of J.P. Morgan's request for injunctive relief, even though the merits of J.P. Morgan's raiding claim will be decided in arbitration, and conducts a traditional four-part Rule 65 analysis to do so. First, the Court finds that, under New York law, J.P. Morgan has an interest in preventing former employees from exploiting client relationships created and maintained at the firm's expense. The Court also finds that J.P. Morgan will likely succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim because the confidentiality provisions of the agreements required the brokers to immediately return all client information derived from any firm source, including information stored on personal cell phones. Second, the Court finds that, absent injunctive relief, J.P. Morgan will suffer immediate and irreparable harm through loss of goodwill and fair competition. The harm to others and public interest factors do not weigh in favor of either party but, given the weight of the first two factors for J.P. Morgan, the Court enjoins the brokers and all those acting in concert from soliciting J.P. Morgan clients, orders the return of all customer information and directs the parties to proceed to arbitration. 

The result was all too predictable, and serves as a reminder of the importance of advising brokers changing firms how the Protocol works and the manner in which to conduct their departures even if the Protocol does not apply.

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.