Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

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.

CLARCOR
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

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Comments on Jurisdictional Issues in Federal Arbitration Act Petitions

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

September 7, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini examined how the Second Circuit eliminated inconsistencies in how subject matter jurisdiction is established in matters brought under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by applying the "look through" approach regardless whether the petition is based on FAA §4 (petition to compel) or FAA §10 (petition to vacate).

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.

Doscher vs. Sea Port Group Secs., LLC, No. 15-2814 (2nd Cir., 8/11/16) 

In the Second Circuit, federal courts may find subject matter jurisdiction in arbitration matters where a federal question is stated on the face of a petition brought under the Federal Arbitration Act or by "looking through" the petition to determine whether a federal question is stated in the underlying claims. 

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his petition to vacate a FINRA arbitration Award (FINRA #13-01857 (NYC, 10/22/14)). The district court, relying on Second Circuit precedent, held (SLA 2015-31) that it could not find subject matter jurisdiction by "looking through" Plaintiff's petition to vacate brought under §10 of the FAA. Rather, subject matter jurisdiction existed only if the §10 petition stated a substantial federal question on its face, but the court found none. Seemingly inviting an appeal, the court questioned whether a different result was required by the United States Supreme Court decision in Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (holding that federal courts considering petitions to compel arbitration under §4 of the FAA may look through the petition and find subject matter jurisdiction in the underlying claims), but cautioned that it could not contradict Circuit precedent.

On appeal, the Second Circuit first confirms the district court's finding that the arbitration panel's alleged violation of FINRA's discovery rules does not itself raise a federal question on which jurisdiction would lie. Absent a facial federal question, the Court revisits its precedent on the "look through" approach in the wake of Vaden, and thoroughly examines whether that precedent is inconsistent with Vaden. The Court recognizes the tension between allowing a "look through" in a §4 petition to compel, while disallowing it in a §10 petition to vacate, and concludes that the more consistent interpretation of the FAA as a whole construes the differing language in §§ 4 and 10 as defining remedies, but signaling nothing about jurisdiction. In this way, the Court concludes, the ordinary jurisdictional inquiry under §1331 (the general jurisdiction statute) allows courts to look to the underlying substantive dispute for jurisdiction regardless of the FAA section at issue. The result, the Court notes, is well suited to Congress' intent to favor arbitration by constraining the role of federal courts where an agreement to arbitrate exists, without displacing the courts' ability to enforce the remedies Congress created in the FAA.

Finally, the Court explains that applying the "look through" approach prevents the absurdity of an interpretation that permits parties to file motions to compel in federal court where the underlying dispute raises a federal question, but precludes them from seeking the same federal court's aid under the FAA's other provisions. Such an inconsistency, the Court states, encourages parties to lock in jurisdiction by filing a federal suit to secure jurisdiction, then moving for a stay pending compulsory arbitration, and returning to the federal court if disputes arise over arbitrators, subpoenas, or awards. The Court describes this practice as the "height of absurdity," which can be avoided by consistent application of the "look through" approach across the FAA. Having undertaken this analysis, the Court concludes that Vaden is fundamentally inconsistent with its prior position, overrules its precedent, and remands the case to the district court for additional proceedings. 

It is doubtful Plaintiff will prevail in obtaining vacatur of the Award, because courts generally do not second-guess arbitrators' decisions regarding discovery and admission or exclusion of evidence.


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.