Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jordana Nelson's prior experience as a general counsel inform her work with firm clients? Read more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

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

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

Chris Lazarini Provides Insight on Claim Preclusion Following an Award in Arbitration


October 26, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on a case in which a former financial advisor sought to recover money he contributed to his former firm's Wealth Creation Program. The Court ruled that since the advisor had the opportunity to fully litigate his claims in a prior FINRA arbitration, the doctrine of res judicata barred the advisor's subsequent state court action. 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.

Strebler vs. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. 09-4284, 2015 Ohio 4034 (Ohio App., 9Dist., 9/30/15) 

As a general rule, res judicata may not be raised by motion to dismiss. * An exception to the general rule exists where the face of the complaint alleges facts proving the prior opportunity to fully litigate the claims at issue. 

This is yet another installment in Plaintiff's efforts to force Morgan Stanley to return $44,000 he contributed to Morgan Stanley's Wealth Creation Program while employed by the firm. Plaintiff first filed his claims in federal court and was compelled to arbitrate. He lost in arbitration (FINRA ID #10-05299 (Cleveland, 11/4/11) and returned to the federal court, seeking vacatur. That request was effectively denied, as the federal court refused to re-open the case, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff then filed this state court action. Morgan Stanley removed the case to federal court, which subsequently remanded to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (SLA 2014-38). Plaintiff's remand victory was hollow, as the state court granted Morgan Stanley's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, finding that all of the claims were barred by res judicata.

This appeal followed. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in determining that the federal case included a final judgment on the merits of his claims. The Court disagrees. It begins by recognizing the general rule that res judicata may not be raised by a 12(b)(6) motion. After scrutinizing the complaint, however, taking all allegations as true and giving Plaintiff the benefit of all inferences, the Court finds that this case fits the exception to the general rule. Plaintiff's description of the procedural history of the case in the complaint reveals that the claims in the federal case were terminated on their merits after a final judgment from the arbitrator, the federal court's refusal to re-open the matter after the arbitration Award issued and the Sixth Circuit's affirmance. Because those same claims are alleged here, Plaintiff had the prior opportunity to fully litigate the claims and is barred by res judicata from raising them again. One judge dissents, stating that there are gaps in the face of the complaint that can only be explained by considering extraneous matters, a process that is not appropriate for 12(b)(6) motions.

(SLC Ref. No. 2015-39-02)

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.