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 Provides Insight on Limited Review of Arbitration Awards

Securities Litigation Commentator


August 19, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on a case in which the court rejected plaintiff's efforts to vacate an adverse FINRA arbitration Award, and instead confirmed the Award. Plaintiff argued that the arbitrators misinterpreted his compensation agreement with his former firm, misconstrued his arguments, and incorrectly calculated damages. Rejecting these arguments, the court stated since the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, they opted out of the court system, including the traditional appellate review process and factual and legal errors by the arbitrators, no matter how gross they may be, cannot support vacating the Award.

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.

Boldischar vs. Reliastar Life Insurance Co., No. 14-C-6844 (N.D. Ill., 7/26/16) 

When parties agree to arbitrate their disputes, they opt out of the court system, including the traditional appellate review process, and factual and legal errors by the arbitrators, no matter how gross they may be, cannot support vacating the Award. 

Plaintiff is a former commission-based employee of Reliastar. His commissions were paid under annual Sales Incentive Plans ("SIPs") that included charge-back provisions if policies sold were cancelled prior to their first anniversary date. Faced with $210,000 in charge-backs in 2013, Plaintiff and Reliastar agreed that Plaintiff's future monthly draws would be reduced until the charge-backs were paid. A few months later, however, Plaintiff resigned, and Reliastar demanded immediate payment of the charge-backs. Plaintiff filed this action, seeking a declaratory judgment that the SIPs did not require him to pay the charge-backs after he resigned and that he had no other obligation to do so. On Reliastar's motion, the Court stayed the action and directed the parties to FINRA arbitration based on the arbitration provisions of Plaintiff's U4. After the arbitration panel issued its Award for Reliastar (FINRA #14-03384 (Chicago, 8/12/15), the parties returned to the Court – Plaintiff seeking vacatur of the Award, and Reliastar seeking confirmation.

Plaintiff framed his vacatur arguments around 9 U.S.C. §10(a)(4), arguing that the arbitrators exceeded their powers by ignoring the plain meaning of the SIPs, failing to allow Plaintiff to present alternative defenses, misconstruing Plaintiff's arguments, incorrectly calculating damages and improperly including interest in the Award. The Court finds each challenge insufficient to warrant vacatur. First, in a contract dispute submitted to arbitration, the question for a court is not whether the arbitrators erred in interpreting the contract, clearly erred in interpreting the contract or even grossly erred in interpreting the contract; it is whether they interpreted the contract at all. Because Plaintiff conceded that the arbitrators interpreted the SIPs, the Court rejects this argument. Second, the Court finds, contrary to Plaintiff's argument, that the arbitrators considered Plaintiff's alternative defense theories and rejected them. Third, the Court finds Plaintiff's claims that the arbitrators misconstrued his arguments and incorrectly calculated damages to be nothing more than arguments that the arbitrators made errors of law in dealing with Reliastar's unjust enrichment claim. The Court refuses to second-guess the arbitrators' judgment. Finally, the Court finds that the absence of an explanation from the arbitrators of their reasons for assessing interest does not mean that they failed to consider whether a contractual or statutory basis existed for doing so. Again, the Court declines to second-guess the arbitrators' judgment. Having rejected each of Plaintiff's vacatur arguments, the Court denies his motion and grants Reliastar's motion to confirm the Award. 

EIC: Reliastar is a subsidiary of broker-dealer Voya America Equities, Inc., which was a defendant in this case and a claimant in the arbitration, along with Reliastar.

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.