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

Britt Latham Co-authors Article on Future of Disclosure-Only Settlements in M&A Class Actions

The New York Law Journal

Publications

May 24, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Britt Latham co-authored an article for The New York Law Journal discussing the future of "disclosure-only" settlements in M&A class actions following the Delaware Court of Chancery's rejection of several such settlements in 2015. Britt co-authored the article with James P. Smith III, a partner and chair of the securities litigation practice at Winston & Strawn.

As discussed in the article, the question going forward is whether these developments in Delaware will divert to other states the routine rush of litigation that typically follows a public company merger announcement. "Disclosure-only settlements have become 'the most common method for quickly resolving stockholder lawsuits that are filed routinely in response to the announcement of virtually every transaction involving the acquisition of a public corporation,'" the authors explain, citing the opinion in Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. These disclosure settlements are sometimes referred to as a "deal tax" – an inevitable annuity paid to plaintiffs' lawyers – that has simply become part of the "cost of doing business" in getting a public deal to closing. These settlements also provide "deal insurance," since settling on the basis of additional pre-vote proxy disclosures (1) provides deal certainty by avoiding the risk of an injunction of the shareholder vote on the proposed merger and (2) eliminates the small risk of future post-closing damages litigation. Thus, they have some benefit for both plaintiffs and defendants. Delaware has begun rejecting these settlements, and because it is the country's leading forum for merger objection litigation, companies should watch closely as other states may follow Delaware's precedent.

The full article, "The Future of Disclosure-Only Settlements," was published by The New York Law Journal on May 23, 2016, and is available online or the PDF below.

Download Document - The Future of Disclosure-Only Settlements (May 23, 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.