Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg 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

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Analyzes Arbitration Provision

Securities Litigation Commentator


May 10, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed a case in which the defendant's motion to compel arbitration, opposed by plaintiffs, was granted by the court finding arbitration is required under Plaintiffs' Forms U4 and FINRA Rule 13200. The arbitration panel will now decide if plaintiffs disregarded the one-year non-solicitation period in their employment agreement by distributing postcards announcing their new job affiliation.

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.

Mullins vs. U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00126 (W.D. Ky., 4/7/16) 

The absence of an arbitration provision in an employment agreement does not negate the independent basis for arbitration that exists in the Form U4 and FINRA Rule 13200. 

When Plaintiff brokers joined Defendant, they signed confidentiality and one-year non-solicitation agreements. In September 2015, they resigned from Defendant, joined a new firm, and sent postcards to customers, friends, and family members, announcing their new affiliation. Defendant sent a cease and desist letter, after which Plaintiffs filed a state court declaratory judgment action.

Defendant removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that their confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements do not contain arbitration provisions. The Court rejects this argument, finding that arbitration is required under Plaintiffs' Forms U4 and FINRA Rule 13200. Because all claims are arbitrable, the Court compels arbitration and enters an order of dismissal. 

Even though Defendant alleged that Plaintiffs made impermissible phone contact with clients, Defendant elected not to seek injunctive relief, a right that existed in the employment agreements. The arbitration should be interesting, as the Panel will be tasked with determining whether the one year non-solicitation period is reasonable and whether Plaintiffs' postcard, which stated that it was "for informational purposes only and not a solicitation" was, in fact, a solicitation in violation of the employment agreements.

Related Professionals

Related Services


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.