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 Comments on Fraud Case Dismissed Due to Lack of Provable Damages

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

February 8, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided comment on the case of Emerman vs. Financial Commodity Investments, LLC in which the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants, finding that Plaintiff failed to present evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could ascertain damages. 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.

Emerman vs. Financial Commodity Investments, LLC, No. 1:13cv2546 (N.D. Ohio, 1/19/16) 

The essence of a fraud action is that the injured party must have suffered some provable amount of damage. 

Plaintiffs filed this fraud and breach of fiduciary duty action to recover alleged losses in Defendants' commodity trading program. Defendants moved for summary judgment after the Court issued an order prohibiting Plaintiffs from offering expert or other testimony supporting or explaining their damages spreadsheet, because Plaintiffs failed to timely identify any expert witness under Rule 26 and otherwise violated the Court's discovery orders regarding their alleged damages (SLA 2015-43).

Plaintiffs' damages spreadsheet was approximately 200 pages in length. Defendants highlighted numerous issues potentially affecting Plaintiffs' calculations, including the proper treatment of notional funding, management fees, and withdrawals prior to discovery of the alleged fraud. Defendants argued that these issues could not be resolved, and Plaintiffs could not prove damages, without expert testimony. Plaintiffs countered that the proper measure of damages was the highest account value attained. They suggested that a simple comparison of the change in account values – which they contended was evident on the face of the spreadsheet – was sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact. Determining the precise amount of damages, they contended, should be left for trial. The Court disagrees, finding Defendants' issues valid and criticizing Plaintiffs' failure to address them. Describing Plaintiffs' spreadsheet as a bewildering and confusing array of unexplained abbreviations, terms and numbers, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact and failed to present evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could ascertain damages. 

We have summarized several prior decisions in this proceeding. See SLA 2015-06 (reporting on the Court's decision to allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint after the deadline for filing amendments had passed), SLA 2015-26 (reporting on the dismissal of Defendants' counterclaims), and SLA 2015-43 (referenced above). These decisions highlight the importance of following the rules and court orders, and demonstrate at least one court's exercise of restraint so that the matter might be decided on its merits, instead of a procedural miscue. In the end, however, Plaintiffs' failure to timely name a damages expert, despite multiple opportunities to do so, proved to be their undoing.


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.