Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Learn about Richard Arnholt's diverse government contracts practice and why he chose to pursue a career in the legal field. Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2017, Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ: PNFP) closed a $1.9 billion merger with BNC Bancorp (NASDAQ: BNCN) pursuant to which BNC merged with and into Pinnacle. With the completion of the transaction, Pinnacle becomes a Top 50 U.S. Bank. The merger will create a four state footprint concentrated in 12 of the largest urban markets in the Southeast. 

Bass, Berry & Sims has served Pinnacle as primary corporate and securities counsel for more than 15 years and served as counsel on the transaction. Our attorneys were involved in all aspects related to the agreement, including tax, employee benefits and litigation. 

Read more details about the transaction here.

Pinnacle Financial Partners logo

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

Richard Arnholt and Kaitlin Harvie Author Article on Implied-Certification Theory

Westlaw Journal Government Contracts

Publications

January 11, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorneys Richard Arnholt and Kaitlin Harvie authored an article for Thomson Reuters' Westlaw Journals 2015 U.S. Supreme Court Report, discussing the implied-certification theory at issue in Triple Canopy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Badr, a case involving allegedly false claims submitted by a defense contractor for security services in Iraq. In the article, Richard and Kaitlin explore the ambiguity of the implied-certification theory and how the pending decision on the Triple Canopy petition for certiorari may help clarify the theory's viability and scope, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari in the Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar case, which addresses the same issues in the healthcare context. In Triple Canopy, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the implied-certification theory, relying on "common sense" and ignoring the express terms of the underlying contract to conclude that false presentment claims had been adequately pleaded against the contractor, even though payment was not conditioned on the provision allegedly violated. To complicate matters, other courts have rejected the theory, such as the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Sanford-Brown Ltd.

The full article, "Implied Certification in the Crosshairs: 7th Circuit Ruling Increases Likelihood of Supreme Court Review of False Claims Act Case," was published January 4, 2016, in Westlaw Journal Government Contracts and is available in the PDF below. Additionally, the article was published in more than 30 legal publications distributed by the publisher.

Download Document - Westlaw Journal Government Contracts (January 4, 2016)

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.