Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? 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 Analyzes Case Holding No Viable Claim for Breach of Duty of Good Faith in Employment At-Will Relationship

Publications

December 7, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed the case of Harmon vs. Principal Life Ins. Co. & Primcor Finl. Services, Corp. in which the Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for intentional interference with business relations and for an accounting. The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss because the good faith and accounting claims were not supported by a viable breach of contract claim and because the interference with business relationships claim was time-barred. 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.

Harmon vs. Principal Life Ins. Co. & Primcor Finl. Services, Corp., No. 2:15-CV-2223 (S.D. Ohio, 11/18/15) 

*Claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for an accounting are not stand-alone claims, and must be supported by a viable claim to withstand a motion to dismiss.
**A complaint may not be amended in a brief opposing a motion to dismiss.
***A broker's failure to timely update a Form U4 may lead to termination and regulatory sanctions. 

For many years, Plaintiff sold insurance products through Principal and securities products through Primcor. In 1999, he signed a Career Agent Contract ("Agent Contract") with Principal. The Agent Contract made him an at-will employee, terminated any prior written or oral contracts, and could not be amended except in a writing signed by both parties. According to Plaintiff, he was terminated by Principal and Primcor in 2010, and his insurance and securities licenses were cancelled, "without just cause." In 2015, Plaintiff filed this action, asserting claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for intentional interference with business relations and for an accounting. Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Conducting a Twombly analysis, the Court grants Defendants’ motion and dismisses the case.

The Court notes that both the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim and the accounting claim cannot stand alone. Rather, they must be supported by another viable claim. The Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that he intended to assert a breach of contract claim based on oral representations made to him regarding continuing commission payments that were not received, as no fair reading of the complaint supports the "inartfully drafted" argument, and refuses to allow Plaintiff to amend his claims through his opposition brief. Further, the Court concludes, a breach of contract claim, even if read into the complaint, fails because nothing in the complaint allows the Court to infer that the oral representations regarding commissions were integrated into the Contract. The Court also holds that Plaintiff's speculation on the reasons for his termination are irrelevant, because there is no separate cause of action for violating a duty of good faith in an employment-at-will relationship.

Finally, the Court dismisses the intentional interference with business relations claim as being time-barred under Ohio's applicable four-year statute of limitations. The Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that information posted on his CRD by Primcor restarts the running of the statute every day as bordering on frivolous. Even if the CRD posting could support the claim, the statute was triggered when the posting first appeared over four years prior. 

While the at-will relationship means that Defendants did not have to justify their termination decision, it appears that termination was warranted, because Plaintiff misrepresented his financial standing to the firm for many years, failing to timely disclose tax liens, judgments and a bankruptcy filing. When Plaintiff's Form U4 was finally updated, FINRA fined him $10,000 and suspended him for six months.


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.