Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out how Gardner Bell's experience promoting financial and economic development initiatives both locally and abroad informs his role as an attorney. Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
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

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Examines Coverage of Form U4's Arbitration Clause and Incorporation by Reference

Publications

November 12, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini examines a case in which the court retroactively applied the arbitration clause found in the Form U4 Plaintiff signed with his current employer to compel an associated person to arbitrate a dispute with his former employer. The Court rejected the former employer's efforts to bind Plaintiff to FINRA's arbitration rules through incorporation by reference. 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.

Freund vs. UBS Financial Services, Inc., No. 15-cv-7965 (N.D. Ill., 10/23/15) 

*The broad arbitration clause of the Form U4 covers disputes not only with an associated person's current employer, but also with any FINRA member firm and any other associated person.
**The clause may be applied retroactively to disputes with member firms and other associated persons arising prior to the signing of the Form U4. 

In November 2011, Plaintiff joined UBS. He was not licensed and signed only a Letter Agreement in which he agreed to maintain the confidentiality of customer information and abide by the laws, rules, and regulations of the industry, including those of the any self-regulatory organization ("SRO") of which UBS was a member. The Letter Agreement did not specifically mention FINRA or arbitration. In February 2012, Plaintiff, his branch manager, and several registered persons, resigned from UBS and joined Wells Fargo.

UBS commenced arbitration against the branch manager and other registered persons, but did not name Plaintiff. After Plaintiff signed a Form U4 and became an associated person of Wells Fargo, UBS sought to amend its arbitration claims to add Plaintiff as a respondent. The panel chair rejected Plaintiff's jurisdictional objections. Plaintiff then filed this action, seeking to enjoin UBS from proceeding against him in the arbitration. UBS argued that FINRA jurisdiction was proper by virtue of (a) the Form U4's arbitration clause, (b) the UBS Letter Agreement, which required Plaintiff to abide by SRO rules, and/or (c) Plaintiff's status as a former agent of UBS.

The Court first notes that, absent a clear and unmistakable agreement to the contrary – which does not exist here -- the jurisdictional issue is for the Court, not the arbitrator, to decide. The Court then examines whether Plaintiff established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. The parties agreed that arbitration would be required if Plaintiff had signed the Form U4 while employed by UBS, but disagreed on its retroactive application. The Court sides with UBS, citing the broad scope of the Form U4's arbitration clause, UBS' claims that Plaintiff's misconduct continued after Plaintiff left UBS and went to work for Wells Fargo, and the presumption that arbitration is a favored means of dispute resolution.

Although this conclusion is sufficient to deny Plaintiff's injunction request, the Court addresses UBS' other arguments. Examining New Jersey law, as required by the Letter Agreement, the Court rejects the argument that the Letter Agreement's reference to SRO rules bound Plaintiff to FINRA's arbitration rules. An enforceable incorporation by reference leaves no doubt as to what is being incorporated. The Court concludes that the Letter Agreement was not specific enough to allow Plaintiff to ascertain without doubt that FINRA's arbitration rules would bind him. The Court similarly rejects UBS' agency argument, finding no legal support for the concept that, as UBS' agent, Plaintiff was bound by the terms of UBS' FINRA membership agreement. The Court also concludes that Plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm or the lack of an adequate remedy at law if he were required to participate in the FINRA arbitration. 

Depending on the facts, Plaintiff might have made a tactical error conceding that arbitration would have been required had he signed a Form U4 at UBS. In Barr v. Bishop Rosen & Co., Inc., the New Jersey Appellate Court declined to enforce the Form U4 arbitration clause under New Jersey law because the Form U4 does not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to pursue remedies in court, and Bishop Rosen presented no other evidence of a knowing waiver. See SLA 2015-40. The Court here was attuned to New Jersey's knowing waiver requirement, having applied it in rejecting UBS' arguments on the Letter Agreement, and might have viewed the retroactive reach of the Form U4 differently if Wells Fargo had failed to comply with FINRA Rule 2263, which requires member firms to provide associated persons with a written statement explaining the arbitration process when asking a person to sign an initial or amended Form U4.


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.