Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jessie Zeigler anticipate the intersection of privacy and smart technology will impact the future of litigation? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

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

Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist

The complex and ever-changing healthcare regulatory and enforcement environment, including increased focus on the role of private equity firms in their portfolio companies, make compliance a top priority for private equity firms investing in healthcare companies. The best way to limit your exposure as a private equity firm is to avoid a compliance misstep in the first place. Additionally, an effective and robust compliance program for your portfolio healthcare company makes it much more attractive to potential buyers and helps you avoid an unexpected and costly investigation or valuation hit down the road. Download the Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist to assess whether your portfolio company's compliance program is up-to-date.

Click here to download the checklist.

Chris Lazarini Provides Insight on Actions to Vacate Arbitration Awards

Securities Litigation Commentator


November 8, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on a case in which Morgan Stanley filed a FINRA arbitration against a former broker seeking the balance due on a promissory note. Following the arbitration, the panel issued a decision in favor of Morgan Stanley, awarding payment of the promissory note balance, interest, and all costs and attorneys' fees. When the plaintiff sought to vacate the costs and attorneys' fee portion of the award, the court ruling affirmed deference to the arbitrator's decision, noting that even serious errors in the interpretation or application of the law or a contract cannot support vacatur.

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.

Lott vs. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 15-14338 (E.D. Mich., 7/28/16)

A Court's review of an arbitrator's decision is one of the narrowest reviews in all of American jurisprudence; courts must give substantial deference to the arbitrator's decision and even serious errors in the interpretation or application of the law or a contract cannot support vacatur.

Plaintiff is a former Morgan Stanley broker. Following his resignation, Morgan Stanley filed a FINRA arbitration, seeking the $543,000 balance due on a promissory note. Plaintiff counterclaimed, alleging various bad acts by Morgan Stanley. Plaintiff also filed a separate FINRA arbitration and the cases were later consolidated. The arbitration involved 20 hearing sessions and, on the final day, Morgan Stanley tendered an affidavit supporting its $351,000 attorneys' fee request. Plaintiff's counsel objected, arguing that the affidavit was irrelevant because it did not specify what time was spent on the claims and counterclaims. The Panel accepted the affidavit "for what it’s worth" and closed the hearing after confirming that neither party had anything else to offer. It then issued its Award for Morgan Stanley, directing Plaintiff to pay the balance due on the note, interest, and all of Morgan Stanley's requested attorneys' fees and costs (FINRA #12-00691 (Detroit, 11/10/15)).

Plaintiff sought to vacate the award of attorneys' fees and costs, arguing that the Panel improperly refused to hear evidence, exceeded its authority and manifestly disregarded the law. The Court rejects each argument. First, Plaintiff failed to object to the attorneys' fee request on any grounds other than relevance, did not request time to review the fees and does not indicate what evidence the Panel refused to hear. Next, in judging whether the Panel exceeded its authority, the Court declares that it must give substantial deference to the arbitrators' interpretation of the attorneys' fee provision of the promissory note and notes that even a "serious error" in interpretation does not support vacatur. Here, the arbitrators' conclusion that the provision allows recovery of all attorneys' fees incurred was reasonable. Finally, the Court finds nothing supporting manifest disregard of the law, noting Plaintiff's failure to object to the reasonableness of the fees and, again, deferring to the arbitrators, who were in the best position to judge their reasonableness. Having rejected each of Plaintiff's arguments, the Court grants Morgan Stanley's motion to confirm the Award.

Morgan Stanley's victory may be somewhat hollow, as Plaintiff's BrokerCheck reflects the recent filing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

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.