Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What emerging trend in shareholder litigation does Britt Latham find most interesting in his practice today?    Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more

Envision Healthcare

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

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Chris Lazarini Comments on Case Alleging Violation of Commodity Exchange Act


November 5, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided comment on the case of CFTC vs. Miklovich in which the court found that a commodities trader violated the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by effecting unauthorized trades and falsifying firm documents. 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.

CFTC vs. Miklovich, No. 3:14CV594 (N.D. Ohio, 9/30/15) 

A violation of the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act may be shown by unauthorized trading and by evidence that a trader caused false reports to be generated by his firm. 

The Commission alleged that Miklovich violated the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA") by effecting unauthorized trades in the accounts of two customers and falsifying daily reports to conceal his conduct. Miklovich denied the allegations in his answer, but raised his Fifth Amendment privilege during his deposition. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment.

The Court finds no genuine issue of material fact as to Miklovich's unauthorized trading. The sole evidence in the record, the Court notes, is that the customers testified that trades could not be made on their behalf without specific authorization and that they had not authorized the trades. The Court similarly finds no genuine issue as to the falsified reports. The Court rejects Miklovich's argument that he could not be held responsible for the falsified reports because he was not at work when the reports were created.

The Court finds that a showing of deliberate action is not required to establish the CEA violation. Rather, the Commission established its claim by showing that Miklovich's knowing omissions caused the false reports to be generated by his firm. The Court further points to the fact that Miklovich acted during a week when the person responsible for creating the daily reports was on vacation and then attempted to hide his actions after the fact by claiming that his laptop and iPad had been stolen in finding that the facts support only one conclusion – Miklovich acted deliberately, knowing that his acts were unauthorized. The Court grants the Commission's motion, and denies Miklovich's motion. 

The Court next turns to the relief to be afforded the Commission. The Court orders Miklovich to make full restitution to his former firm in the amount of $566,360, fines him $100,000, and permanently enjoins him from future violations of the federal commodity laws, applying for registration with the Commission or acting as principal, officer, employee or agent of any person registered with the Commission. 

(The Court declines to address the Commission's request that it draw an adverse inference from Miklovich's invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, finding that the Commission more than carried its burden without the inference. The issue is interesting given that drawing an adverse inference contravenes the summary judgment concept of drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.)

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.