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>

Search

Close X

Experience

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 Provides Insight on Case Involving Dismissal of Claims Related to Madoff Ponzi Scheme

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

January 19, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on the case R.W. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of PA vs. Meridian Capital Partners, Inc. in which the plaintiff sued Meridian and others seeking to recover losses suffered in the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The Court upheld the district court's consolidation order and dismissal of all claims. 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.

R.W. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of PA vs. Meridian Capital Partners, Inc., No. 15-1064 (2nd Cir., 12/15/15) 

*A district court may consolidate actions when there are common questions of law or fact in the cases pending before the court.
**To state a claim under Section 10(b), plaintiff must specifically identify the fraudulent statements, the speaker, where and when the statements were made and why the statements were fraudulent.
***SLUSA precludes state or common law claims alleging fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security. 

In multidistrict litigation, Plaintiff sued Meridian and others, seeking to recover losses suffered in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The district court dismissed the action, finding that the middlemen defendants were genuinely deceived by Madoff and that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court also dismissed Plaintiff's state law claims, finding them precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA").

On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the consolidation order and the dismissal of its claims. The Court finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating Plaintiff's claims with those of others, explaining that there are common questions of fact among the cases regarding defendants' investor presentations, letters and quarterly reports.

Conducting a de novo review, the Court affirms the dismissal of the Section 10(b) claims. The Court finds Plaintiff's "red flag" allegations – Defendants recklessly ignored warnings which should have called attention to Madoff's illegal conduct – do not give rise to a strong inference of scienter necessary to state a securities fraud claim. The Court notes that multiple district courts have rejected similar claims based on an alleged failure of due diligence in uncovering Madoff's fraud.

Finally, the Court finds that the district court properly dismissed the state law claims under SLUSA's preclusion provision. The state law claims, the Court explains, allege deception in connection with Plaintiff's decision to invest in one of Madoff's feeder funds and are, therefore, part of a covered class action precluded under SLUSA.


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.