Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Brianna Powell's work as a law clerk prepare her for practicing law? Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

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

Chris Lazarini Analyzes Arbitration Provision

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

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

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.