Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

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 Provides Insight on Definition of Customer Under FINRA Rules

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

June 28, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on the case of J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC & Lepper vs. Porcher in which the defendant claimed in separate arbitrations that J.P Morgan Securities (JPMS) wrongfully liquidated his securities account and allegedly provided unsuitable investment advice. JPMS argued that since the first arbitration panel dismissed defendant's claims, concluding that defendant was not a "customer," the second arbitration should be enjoined for the same reason. Noting factual differences in the claims and the addition of Lepper to the second arbitration, the court refused to enjoin the second arbitration and left the determination of whether defendant was a JPMS "customer" under FINRA Rules for the arbitrators to decide.

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.

J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC & Lepper vs. Porcher, No. 15-10761 (E.D. Mich., 6/7/16) 

*The determination of whether a person is a "customer" under FINRA Rules is for the arbitrators to decide, not the courts.
**A court may confirm an arbitration award only if the Award represents the final decision of the arbitrators.
***A dismissal without prejudice is not a final decision. 

Defendant held two accounts at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase Bank"), a private client account holding securities and a line of credit account secured by the private client account. The relationship was primarily serviced by Ryan Lepper ("Lepper"), an employee of Chase Bank who was registered with FINRA through J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. ("JPMS"). In 2008, Defendant's securities lost value, and Chase Bank terminated the line of credit and liquidated Defendant's securities. In 2012, Defendant initiated a FINRA arbitration against JPMS, alleging wrongful liquidation of his securities. On JPMS' motion, the arbitration panel dismissed the case without prejudice, finding no agreement to arbitrate between Defendant and JPMS (FINRA ID #12-02076 (Detroit, 8/23/13)).

In 2014, Defendant commenced a second arbitration against JPMS and Lepper, alleging unsuitable investment recommendations. JPMS and Lepper commenced this action, seeking to confirm the dismissal in the first arbitration and to enjoin the second arbitration. JPMS and Lepper argued Defendant should be collaterally estopped from pursuing the second arbitration, because the first arbitration panel determined that Defendant was not a "customer" of JPMS. They also argued that Lepper was not acting as an "associated person" in his dealings with Defendant.

The Court rejects these arguments. First, it finds that collateral estoppel does not apply, because the first arbitration panel decided the "customer" issue solely on basis of the absence of a customer agreement between Defendant and JPMS. The Panel did not, however, decide whether Defendant was a "customer" of Lepper, an "associated person," nor did it consider evidence relating to JPMS' potential supervisory role over Defendant's Chase Bank accounts. The Court declines to take up this version of the "customer" issue, finding it a question for the arbitrators to decide. Second, the Court finds that the first arbitration did not result in a "final" judgment, because the panel dismissed the matter without prejudice. The absence of finality in the first proceeding, the Court explains, precludes both a finding of collateral estoppel and the Court's ability to confirm the Award.


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.