Close X
Attorney Spotlight

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

Search

Close X

Experience

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 Discusses Factors That May Lead to Waiver of the Right to Compel Arbitration

Publications

November 16, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini reviewed the court's decision in Bank of America vs. Telerico in which the court determined that Telerico waived his right to arbitrate by not raising the issue at the trial court level. 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.

Bank of America vs. Telerico, No. 2015-P-0026 (Ohio App., 11Dist., 11/2/15) 

The right to arbitrate may be waived by participating in court proceedings. 

In 2011, Bank of America ("BOA") filed a foreclosure action against broker Telerico and Stifel Bank & Trust ("Stifel Bank"). Stifel, Nicolaus & Co ("Stifel"), as assignee of Stifel Bank, answered and cross-claimed against Telerico on a $400,000 Deed of Trust. While the BOA claims were pending, the trial court granted Stifel's motion for summary judgment on its cross-claim and entered a final judgment in Stifel's favor. 

Telerico appealed, arguing that the trial court was divested of subject matter jurisdiction over Stifel's cross-claim due to a related FINRA arbitration and that, under the Deed of Trust, the trial court erred in entering a final judgment for Stifel while the BOA claims were pending.

The Court rejects Telerico's jurisdictional argument, holding that the right to arbitrate is waived if not raised in the course of litigation. It follows, the Court concludes, that if the right to arbitrate can be waived, the fact that issues may be subject to arbitration does not automatically divest the court of jurisdiction. The Court also rejects Telerico's argument that the judgment for Stifel was premature, finding that Telerico violated the Deed of Trust. The Court also finds the appeal frivolous and grants Stifel its costs and expenses because Telerico's assigned errors were raised for the first time on appeal and were not supported by the record. 

There is no discussion in the case about the outcome of the FINRA arbitration and no Award was located in SAC's or FINRA's Award databases that appears to be related to the dispute. Had Telerico filed a motion to stay the case after the arbitration commenced, the trial court would likely have considered factors such as whether the arbitration claims were related to the Deed of Trust claims, the time that had elapsed in the litigation, the amount of resources the parties and the court had committed to the litigation (depositions, motion practice, etc.,), and the resulting prejudice, if any, to Stifel if the matter were compelled to arbitration.


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.