Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

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 Sixth Circuit's Determination that Class Plaintiffs Failed to Sufficiently Allege Scienter

Publications

September 14, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on the Sixth Circuit's affirmation of a lower court's dismissal of a shareholder class action. The Court found that claims of corporate mismanagement are not covered by §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court further found that while Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants had motive and opportunity to commit securities fraud, the allegations did not sufficiently allege scienter. 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.

Bondali vs. Yum! Brands, Inc., No. 15-5064 (6th Cir., 8/20/15) 

*Claims of corporate mismanagement are not covered by §10(b).

**Allegations of motive and opportunity to commit securities fraud alone are not sufficient to create a strong inference of knowing or reckless activity necessary to establish scienter. 

Defendant owns Taco Bell and KFC restaurants. Between 2010 and 2011, Defendant learned that chicken from one of its Chinese KFC suppliers tested positive for drug and antibiotic residues prohibited under Chinese law. Defendant terminated its relationship with the supplier and its parent entity, but did not disclose the test results or the supplier terminations to the public or regulators. In late 2012, Chinese media reported that Defendant was facing food safety issues with multiple suppliers. In the wake of the reports, Defendant's stock price fell 17%, and Defendant, admitting that it had lost consumer confidence, stated that it no longer expected to achieve earnings per share growth in 2013. The district court dismissed the consolidated class action that followed, finding that Plaintiffs failed to allege a material misstatement or omission and failed to allege a strong inference of scienter. The Court agrees and affirms.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant's regulatory filings were misleading because they portrayed food safety issues as potential risks, without disclosing the known testing results. The Court finds the risk disclosures not actionable because their purpose, by definition, is to warn investors about what may happen to their investment and not to educate investors on harms currently affecting the company. In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts suggesting that the supplier issues were so widespread or severe that they would have resulted in a financial loss to Defendant. The Court notes that, while it must construe the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, it does not have to speculate about facts not alleged.

Plaintiffs also alleged that the regulatory filings and Defendant's statements following the media reports were misleading because Defendant described its safety protocols as "strict" when they were "woefully inadequate." The Court finds Defendant's description of its safety protocols not actionable because it was reasonably grounded in objective fact. That a few suppliers did not adhere to the protocols does not mean they did not exist, and the Court declines to interpret Defendant's characterization of its protocols as anything more than an aspirational statement, and not a guarantee that all suppliers would, in all instances, abide by the protocols. At best, the Court concludes, Plaintiffs have raised a claim of corporate mismanagement regarding the efficiency of the protocols, not investor deception. Such a claim is not covered by §10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

Finally, the Court notes that a strong inference of scienter was not sufficiently alleged. While the complaint alleged that Defendant had the motive and opportunity to commit securities fraud, it failed to allege that senior officers or other agents knew or should have known that Defendant's statements discussing investment risks or touting safety protocols were false or misleading. Absent a primary violation, the Court also affirms the dismissal of the control person claims.


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.