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 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.