Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jordana Nelson's prior experience as a general counsel inform her work with firm clients? Read more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

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

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

Court Orders Parties to Retry Arbitration Seven Years After Award

Firm Publication


November 14, 2016

In 2008, Move, Inc., initiated a FINRA arbitration against Citigroup Global Markets, alleging that Citigroup improperly invested over $131 million of Move's assets in illiquid and unsuitable auction rate securities. The parties picked their three-person Panel through FINRA Dispute Resolution's arbitrator selection process, and James H. Frank was appointed as the Chairperson. In 2010, after eight days of hearings, the Panel denied Move's claims (the "2010 Award"). Move, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., FINRA DR Case No. 08-03355. 

In 2013, nearly three years later, FINRA removed Mr. Frank from its arbitrator pool, having learned that Mr. Frank misrepresented his educational background and falsely reported that he was an attorney. Prior to his removal, Mr. Frank had participated in over 38 hearings (including 25 in which he had served as chair or the sole arbitrator). In March 2014, Move sought to vacate the 2010 Award in federal court. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Move's motion. Move then appealed to the Ninth Circuit which earlier this month reversed and ordered a new arbitration hearing.1 Surely, neither Move nor Citigroup foresaw that they would be re-trying the case seven years after the Award was issued.2

Putting aside the legal issues raised by the Ninth Circuit's opinion,3 the decision provides a practical reminder that arbitration parties should conduct an extensive and thorough review of potential arbitrators before selecting them. Consider including these proactive steps in analyzing potential arbitrators:

  • Critically review the arbitrator's disclosure report to identify inconsistencies, inaccuracies, gaps and far-fetched disclosures.
  • Research the arbitrator's disclosed publications, affiliations and memberships.
  • Besides analyzing the disclosed awards, search for additional undisclosed awards, vacated awards and awards from different forums.
  • Conduct internet research, including ethically-permissible searches of social and professional networking sites, through which you may:
    • Verify licenses and professional designations or locate undisclosed disciplinary matters;
    • Find matters where the arbitrator was a party, party representative, witness or neutral;
    • Locate undisclosed publications; and
    • Further examine the arbitrator's employment background and business affiliations. 
  • Contact others who may know the arbitrator or have had experiences before the arbitrator.
  • Seek additional information from the arbitrator during the selection process under FINRA Rules 12402, 12403, 13402 or 13404.

While extensive research may not uncover all potential problems,4 using these approaches, we have identified missing or inaccurate information in arbitrator disclosure reports and actual or potential conflicts of interest that caused us to strike arbitrators who we might otherwise have ranked. Examples include an arbitrator who failed to disclose that he was a lead plaintiff in a securities class action involving similar securities as those at issue in the arbitration and an arbitrator representing claimants in a related case against the respondent. We have also discovered information about arbitrators who, like Mr. Frank, should not have been in, and were subsequently removed from, FINRA's arbitrator pool. Examples include an arbitrator with an unreported and disqualifying felony conviction and an arbitrator who had left private practice and become a FINRA employee.

Due diligence during the arbitrator selection process will help you identify arbitrators who you believe are well-suited to hear your case and may provide an ounce of prevention to reduce the likelihood that your opponent's post-arbitration challenge will succeed.

1 Move, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 2:14-cv-04418-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.).
2Move, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 2016 WL 6543522 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016).
3 These issues include, among others: (a) how might the split between Circuit Courts concerning whether the Federal Arbitration Act's vacatur provisions are subject to equitable tolling be resolved; (b) what is the standard of proof to demonstrate prejudice under 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(3); and (c) how did Mr. Frank's misrepresentations violate fundamental fairness absent proof of actual or suggested bias by him.
4 In the case of Mr. Frank, it appears that participants in at least 38 arbitrations between 1996 and 2011 did not discover the truth.

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.