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 Discusses Adoption of the Materialization of Risk Standard in Securities Fraud Case

Securities Litigation Commentator


August 23, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed the Sixth Circuit's adoption of the materialization of risk standard as a viable means of proving loss causation in a securities fraud case. 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.

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., No. 14-4189 (6th Cir., 7/20/16) 

The Sixth Circuit joins the majority of circuits and adopts the "materialization of the risk" standard as a viable means of proving loss causation in a securities fraud case. 

On November 20, 2007, Freddie Mac disclosed the true extent of its involvement in subprime and other nontraditional mortgage markets and reported a loss of more than $2 billion. That same day, Freddie Mac's stock price fell by 29%. This class action alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 followed. Lead Plaintiff OPERS alleged that Freddie Mac concealed its overextension in the nontraditional mortgage market and the deficiencies in its underwriting, risk management, and fraud detection practices through misstatements and omissions to investors and that the fund suffered "foreseeable losses" when the concealed risk materialized. After several rounds of dismissal motions and amended complaints, the district court granted Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss, stating that OPERS' materialization of the risk argument was not recognized by the Sixth Circuit and concluding that OPERS failed to adequately plead loss causation.

Conducting a de novo review, the Sixth Circuit reverses and joins most other circuits in recognizing materialization of the risk as a viable, alternative loss causation theory. Loss causation, the Court explains, is not meant to impose a great burden on the plaintiff; rather, it is meant to provide the defendant with some indication of the causal link between the alleged misconduct and the economic harm suffered by the plaintiff. Materialization of the risk, whereby a plaintiff alleges that negative investor response to the revelation of a hidden fact is a "foreseeable materialization" of the risk concealed by the hidden fact, meets that standard, the Court concludes.

Then, accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, the Court finds OPERS' materialization of the risk argument sufficient to withstand Freddie Mac's dismissal motion. The Court summarizes OPERS' theory thus: OPERS purchased Freddie Mac stock before November 20, 2007, under the misimpression (allegedly fostered by Freddie Mac's public statements) that Freddie Mac adequately protected its higher-risk purchases, had virtually no subprime exposure, and enjoyed more success than its competitors. The revelation of $2 billion in losses on November 20 is well within the "zone of risk" that Freddie Mac allegedly concealed.

The Court rejects Freddie Mac's argument that OPERS failed to plead facts sufficient to exclude more likely explanations for its alleged losses, such as the impact of the Financial Crisis. At this stage, the Court states, OPERS need only allege facts to support a plausible claim, not the most likely one, and given the relationship between the risks allegedly concealed and the risks that subsequently materialized, and the close correlation between the alleged foreseeable materialization of the risk and the fall in Freddie Mac's stock price, it has done so.

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.