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 Provides Insight on Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Motions to Vacate Arbitration Awards

Publications

August 24, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on a case in which the plaintiff sought to vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but the Court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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.

Doscher vs. Sea Port Group Secs., LLC, No. 15-CV-384 (S.D.N.Y., 8/5/15) 

*The Federal Arbitration Act does not bestow subject matter jurisdiction and access to the federal court system exists only where there is an independent basis for jurisdiction.

**Courts may not find jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award by "looking through" the petition to the underlying arbitration claims. 

In 2013, Plaintiff, an associated person, sued his former firm for $15 million on claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, retaliatory discharge and violation of Exchange Act Section 10(b). The arbitration panel awarded him $2.3 million. (FINRA # 13-01857). Dissatisfied with the result, Plaintiff filed a petition seeking to vacate the Award under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). The Court dismisses the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The FAA does not create federal court jurisdiction; there must be an independent basis for exercising the court's jurisdiction. Here, the parties were not diverse, leaving Plaintiff to argue that a federal question existed. First, he argued that the panel violated FINRA's discovery rules which he characterized as substantive federal laws. Citing multiple authorities, the Court summarily rejects this argument because FINRA is a private association and the alleged breach of its rules does not give rise to a federal question. Next, Plaintiff argued that his underlying securities law claims gave him access to the federal system. The Court rejects this argument, relying on Second Circuit precedent holding that a court may not "look through" a petition to vacate to the claims in the underlying arbitration. 

The Court goes on to consider whether the Supreme Court's more recent opinion in Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (holding that federal courts considering petitions to compel arbitration under section 4 of the FAA may look through the petition to the underlying claims) requires a different result. To contradict Second Circuit precedent, the Court notes, it must find that the Second Circuit or Supreme Court is "all but certain" to overturn the prior precedent. The Vaden court focused on Section 4 of the FAA which allows a party to file a petition to compel arbitration in any federal court which "save for [the arbitration] agreement" would have jurisdiction over the matter. The "save for" language is not repeated in Section 10 of the FAA under which petitions to vacate are brought and, in the Court's view, is a critical difference. Because of this, and because multiple courts considering the same issue in the wake of Vaden have concluded that the "look through" test does not apply to Section 10 petitions, the Court finds that it cannot conclude that the prior Second Circuit precedent is untenable. Accordingly, the Court finds it is bound by precedent to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


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.