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 Explains Appellate Court's Use of Abuse of Discretion Standard to Review Dismissal of Derivative Action


August 26, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini outlines the case in which the court affirmed the dismissal of a derivative lawsuit against JP Morgan applying the abuse of discretion standard of review, but discussing the merits of using the more rigorous de novo review standard. 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.

Espinoza vs. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. & Dimon, No. 14-1754 (2nd Cir., 6/16/15) 

*Delaware law affords directors substantial leeway in conducting an investigation and courts routinely reject derivative lawsuits challenging the form of the investigation.

**A split of authority exists regarding whether dismissals of derivative actions must be reviewed using the abuse of discretion standard or the more rigorous de novo standard. 

This case arises out of the London Whale trading debacle, in which JPMorgan suffered over $6 billion in losses on risky derivative investments. When the firm revealed its losses in May 2012, it disclosed that it had modified its risk model, allegedly to hide the fact that the derivatives trading had doubled the firm's risk. In one month, CEO Jamie Dimon went from characterizing the mounting publicity over the losses as "'a complete tempest in a teapot'" to admitting that the investments had been "'flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed, and poorly monitored.'" Numerous suits and congressional and regulatory investigations followed.

Plaintiff, a JP Morgan shareholder, sent a letter to the firm's Board demanding an investigation into the trading and the dissemination of false and misleading information about the scandal. Plaintiff also demanded that the Board sue persons responsible for the losses. In response, the Board formed a Review Committee to oversee the firm's internal investigation which resulted in, among other remedial measures, improved risk controls, termination or reassignment of certain individuals, reduced salaries for others, and claw backs of some bonuses. The Board rejected, however, Plaintiff's demand that the Board sue responsible persons, explaining that, in its judgment, further litigation was not in the company's best interests.

Dissatisfied, Plaintiff filed this derivative action. Applying Delaware's business judgment rule, the district court found that the complaint failed to set forth facts showing that the Board "wrongfully refused" the demand for action and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the district court's deference to the Board. While Plaintiff conceded that the Board adequately investigated the losses, he argued that, if the Board did not investigate the misleading statements minimizing the losses, there was no exercise of "judgment" on that issue that could be presumed reasonable.

The Court affirms, but uses this case to voice its displeasure with the applicable standard of review. Ordinarily, dismissals are subject to a de novo review. In several Circuits, however, including the Second, precedent requires that appellate courts use the less stringent abuse of discretion standard when reviewing dismissals of derivative actions. The Court notes that applying the abuse of discretion standard has been questioned by numerous courts and that the First and Seventh Circuits, and Delaware, have discarded the abuse of discretion standard in recent years.

The Court explains the rationale for applying the more rigorous de novo review standard to derivative actions. First, district courts have no institutional advantage over appellate courts in reviewing the legal sufficiency of pleadings. Second, abuse of discretion review is illogical because questions of law in other circumstances are ordinarily subject to a de novo review. Finally, abuse of discretion review leads to potentially divergent results as appellate courts may be compelled by the standard to affirm differing district court decisions involving similar fact patterns thus creating confusion in an area where clear guidance on management practices is needed. Notwithstanding its view, the Court recognizes the review limitations placed on it by precedent and follows the existing standard.

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.