Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Sylvia Yi's previous work at the Department of Homeland Security prepare her for working with government contractors at Bass, Berry & Sims? Find out more>


Close X


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.

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

FCPA: 2016 Year in Review & 2017 Enforcement Predictions

A review of trends and developments in FCPA as well as a look ahead into what to expect for 2017. This report aims at providing corporate leaders and companies with the knowledge they need to comply with the FCPA and avoid litigation in 2017.

Read now

Chris Lazarini Examines Scienter Standard in Section 10(b) Claim

Securities Litigation Commentator


June 22, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini examines a case in which the Sixth Circuit affirms the lower court's finding that class plaintiffs failed to set forth facts supporting the scienter element of their federal securities law claims.

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.

Doshi & City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System vs. General Cable Corp., No. 15-5621 (6th Cir., 5/24/16) 

*The PSLRA requires plaintiffs to state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind in violating the securities laws.
**A strong inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable; it must be convincing and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent. 

In 2012, and again in 2013, General Cable announced that its 2008 through 2013 financial statements included material accounting errors and should no longer be relied upon. The errors resulted from a complex theft scheme and accounting and other reporting errors in its Brazilian operations. This class action, alleging violations of Securities Exchange Act §10(b) and Rule 10-5 thereunder, and §20(a) control person liability against the company and its CEO and CFO, soon followed. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that Plaintiff's allegations of Defendants' recklessness in issuing the materially false statements failed to adequately plead scienter. The district court also dismissed Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint, finding the proposed amendments futile.

Conducting a de novo review, the Court affirms. To assess whether Plaintiff adequately pled scienter, the Court explains, the allegations must be viewed holistically. It finds some support for inferring scienter because the head of the company's Brazilian operations knew of the theft and accounting errors creating a divergence between internal reports and external statements about the company's financial standing. However, the employee's state of mind, even if reckless, is not imputed to the company because he made no public misstatements. Furthermore, the divergence between the company's internal reports and its external statements is diminished, because the reports on Brazilian operations were only a part of the company's firm-wide data.

Finally, the Court lists multiple other factors favoring rejection of a scienter inference. First, Plaintiff pleads no facts with sufficient particularity implicating suspicious insider trading or failure to disclose impending stock sales. Second, Plaintiff fails to allege that the financial misstatements and inflated stock price had any positive effect on the CEO's or CFO's compensation. Moreover, following its internal investigation, the company clawed back the incentive bonus that had been awarded to the head of its Brazilian operations and forced him to resign, actions counseling against a finding of scienter. Third, Plaintiff fails to allege bribery by a top official or quickly settled ancillary lawsuits. Fourth, the complaint lacks allegations that only highly-sophisticated persons could understand the negative implications of the misstatements. Fifth, the misstatements resulted from a theft scheme that, when coupled with the legitimate freedom of the Brazilian unit to report its financial data, led to the materially misstated public statements. Sixth, Plaintiff fails to connect the knowledge of the head of Brazilian operations to the CEO and CFO. Examining the allegations holistically, the Court concludes, the company and its officers were at most negligent in issuing or authorizing the misstated financial statements. The Court also examines the additional allegations in Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint and finds that they do nothing to alter this finding. 

The factors the Court considers are set out in Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., 251 F.3d 540 (6th Cir, 2001), abrogated on other grounds, Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007).

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.