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 Involving Criminal and Civil Claims Related to Ponzi Scheme

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

February 22, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed the case of SEC vs. Abdallah in which the United States, after filing criminal charges against Abdallah and others who allegedly bilked investors out of more than $20 million in an oil and gas Ponzi scheme, sought to intervene and obtain a stay of the SEC's civil Enforcement Action against the same parties until the criminal proceedings concluded. The court found the interests of justice warranted intervention in the Enforcement Action, but it limited the stay to a period of 90 days and allowed the SEC and the court-appointed Trustee to continue their discovery efforts. 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.

SEC vs. Abdallah, No. 1:14-CV-1155 (N.D. Ohio, 2/2/16) 

* Intervention may be allowed where the moving party files a timely motion and shows a claim or defense having a common question of law or fact with the main action.
** Courts may stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose other conditions on civil proceedings to avoid interfering with parallel criminal proceedings where the interests of justice seem to require it. 

In May 2014, the SEC commenced this Enforcement Action, alleging that Defendants bilked investors out of more than $20 million in an oil and gas Ponzi scheme. A criminal indictment followed, and the United States sought to intervene in the Enforcement Action and request a stay of the proceeding pending completion of the criminal case.

Exercising its discretion, the Court grants the requests, but limits the duration of the stay and allows the SEC and court-appointed Receiver to continue pursuing discovery. The Court first examines each factor set out by the Sixth Circuit for permissive intervention under FRCP 24(b). The Court finds the motion timely, as it was filed thirteen days after the criminal indictment issued and during the initial stages of the Enforcement Action. Next, the Court finds common questions of law and fact exist, because the criminal prosecution and Enforcement Action relate to the same conduct. Finally, the Court finds no undue prejudice to any party and concludes that the Defendants' burden will be reduced if they need not defend two actions on the same claims.

Next, the Court grants, in part, the stay request. Noting that there is no precise test in the Sixth Circuit for determining when a stay is appropriate, the Court finds the majority of the factors commonly considered favor granting the stay. First, the Court reiterates that the subject matter of the civil and criminal actions is virtually identical and involves common questions of law and fact. Second, the Court notes that the criminal action is already underway, all but one of the individual defendants have been indicted, and the public's interest in effective criminal prosecution generally outweighs any existing civil interests. Third, the Court finds that the criminal defendants may benefit from first defending the criminal charges, because doing so would eliminate the risk of undermining their Fifth Amendment rights in the civil action and expanding discovery in the criminal case beyond its permissible limits. Finally, the Court finds that the stay will not interfere with its docket and concludes that resolution of the criminal proceedings might expedite the resolution of the Enforcement Action, saving judicial time and resources. The Court declines to impose a complete stay on the Enforcement Action; instead, it limits the stay to ninety days, after which it will review the matter. The Court also allows the SEC to continue all efforts to identify, locate, and recover Defendants' assets and to account for expenditures and transfers of funds, and allows the Receiver to exercise all powers and duties granted it upon appointment. 

Neither the SEC nor Defendants opposed the motion.


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.