Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did a clerkship with Judge Merritt change the way Chris Climo approaches the practice of law? 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

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

Chris Lazarini Discusses Application of Default Judgment When Defendant Refuses to Participate

Securities Litigation Commentator


November 9, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed the case in which the CFTC sought restitution from defendants for defrauding customers out of $700,000. The defendant was served by publication, but failed to respond or appear in response. As Chris points out, one factor favoring the entry of a default judgment is the prejudice that the defendant's refusal to participate causes to the plaintiff.

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.

CFTC vs. My Global Leverage, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00745 (D. Nev., 8/26/16) 

* One factor favoring the entry of a default judgment is the prejudice that the defendant's refusal to participate causes to the plaintiff.

**The strong policy in favor of decisions on the merits is inapplicable when the defendants are properly served but make no effort to defend themselves. 

The Commission brought this enforcement action seeking restitution, civil monetary penalties and a permanent injunction against Defendants who defrauded precious metal customers out of almost $700,000. Defendants, who were served by publication in Nevada and California, did not appear or otherwise respond to the Commission's allegations and the Commission moved for default judgment.

The Court grants the Commission's motion, explaining the factors justifying default judgment in detail. First, the Commission is prejudiced by Defendants' refusal to participate. Second, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations in the complaint and finds that the Commission presented ample evidence supporting its allegations that Defendants knowingly violated the Commodity Exchange Act and the Dodd-Frank Act. Furthermore, the Commission adequately supported its requests for monetary and injunctive relief. Third, there is little possibility of a dispute over material facts, given the Commission's well-pleaded complaint. Finally, while acknowledging the strong policy in favor of decisions on the merits, the Court finds that policy inapplicable because Defendants were properly served and made no effort to defend themselves.

The Court enters a default judgment, adopting the Commission's findings of fact and conclusions of law, permanently enjoining Defendants from engaging in their unlawful activities, and ordering Defendants to pay the full restitution sought by the Commission, plus more than double that amount as a penalty. The National Futures Association will serve as Monitor to collect and distribute the restitution payments, and the Court orders Defendants to cooperate until the restitution and monetary penalty have been paid. 

In a related action, the Commission obtained similar relief against other participants in the fraudulent scheme. See CFTC v. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, 1 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (S.D. Fl. 2004) (ordering defendants to pay more than $55 million in civil penalties).

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.