Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jessie Zeigler anticipate the intersection of privacy and smart technology will impact the future of litigation? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

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

Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist

The complex and ever-changing healthcare regulatory and enforcement environment, including increased focus on the role of private equity firms in their portfolio companies, make compliance a top priority for private equity firms investing in healthcare companies. The best way to limit your exposure as a private equity firm is to avoid a compliance misstep in the first place. Additionally, an effective and robust compliance program for your portfolio healthcare company makes it much more attractive to potential buyers and helps you avoid an unexpected and costly investigation or valuation hit down the road. Download the Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist to assess whether your portfolio company's compliance program is up-to-date.

Click here to download the checklist.

Chris Lazarini Analyzes the Sarbanes Oxley Act's Reach to Contractors and Subcontractors


November 2, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed the case in which the court ruled that the plaintiff was not protected by the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOXA) since the plaintiff's employer only provided services on behalf of a company subject to SOXA, and not to the company. 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.

Anthony vs. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-1416 (N.D. N.Y., 9/8/15) 

*The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is intended to prevent shareholder fraud by public corporations and by their contractors and subcontractors.
**Contractors and subcontractors are subject to the Act if they provide services to a public company over a significant period of time and their employees are in a position to be firsthand witnesses to shareholder fraud.

Plaintiff Anthony was an at-will employee of Tronco Financial, which marketed and sold Northwestern Mutual Funds and provided compliance services to the Northwestern Defendants for their sales of Northwestern Mutual Funds. Anthony was terminated after reporting various compliance and regulatory violations by Tronco sales representatives to Tronco and the Northwestern Defendants. Anthony alleged that her termination was retaliatory under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOXA") and that Tronco breached the 30 day termination notice provision of her employment contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the SOXA claim because Defendants are not publicly traded companies. Anthony countered that she was protected by SOXA because it also prohibits retaliation by contractors of companies registered under Section 12 or required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Anthony alleged that the Northwestern Mutual Funds must file reports under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, that Tronco and the Northwestern Defendants were contractors of the Northwestern Mutual Funds, and, therefore, that she was covered as an employee of a contractor subject to SOXA.

The Court looks to Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S.Ct. 1158 (2014) for guidance on the scope of Section 1514A's coverage of contractor employees. The Lawson Court held that SOXA applied to contractors performing services over a "significant period of time" and protected contractor employees only to the extent that they are "in a position to detect and report the types of fraud and securities violations that are included in the statute." The Lawson Court determined that the plaintiffs, employees of investment advisory firms handling day-to-day operations of the Fidelity mutual funds, were covered by SOXA because they were positioned to be firsthand witnesses to shareholder fraud.

Analyzing Lawson, the Court concludes that a private company's fraudulent practices do not become subject to SOXA merely because the company has an incidental contract with a public company. Rather, SOXA applies where the contractor employee is functionally acting as an employee of a public company and, in that capacity, is a witness to fraud by the public company. Under this limiting principle, the Court finds that Anthony fails to state a SOXA claim. The complaint alleged that Anthony was responsible for ensuring that Tronco sales representatives complied with their legal and regulatory obligations, and her reports related to sales violations by those representatives. Anthony did not allege that she ensured that the Mutual Funds complied with their legal obligations, nor was she reporting any wrongdoing committed either by the Mutual Funds or on their behalf. The Court concludes that Anthony was providing services on behalf of the Northwestern Mutual Funds, not to them, and, therefore, was not in a position to be a firsthand witness to shareholder fraud by the Funds. Having dismissed the SOXA claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claim.

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.