Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more

Envision Healthcare

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

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Chris Lazarini Analyzes Application of Twombly in Retaliatory Discharge Case

Securities Litigation Commentator


March 1, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed a case in which the plaintiff claimed he was wrongfully terminated from employment at Morgan Stanley after the company discovered he reported alleged illegal activities to the FBI. Applying the standard established under Twombly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claims under the False Claims and Dodd-Frank Acts. 

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.

Verble vs. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 15-6397 (6th Cir., 1/13/17) 

*When considering a motion to dismiss, courts are not bound to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.

**Under Twombly, where the pleaded facts do not allow the court to infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint is deficient and subject to dismissal. 

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his Sarbanes-Oxley Act, False Claims Act and Dodd-Frank Act retaliatory discharge claims (SLA 2015-48). He alleged Morgan Stanley wrongfully terminated him after discovering that he had reported the firm's allegedly illegal activities to the FBI and other regulatory entities. Conducting a de novo review, the Sixth Circuit affirms.

First, the Court agrees with the district court's finding that Plaintiff's conclusory allegations did not provide sufficient facts to support the False Claims Act claim, rejecting Plaintiff's argument that the district court abused its discretion by not granting him leave to amend when his counsel offered to submit additional facts under seal. Here, no additional papers were filed under seal, no leave to make such a filing or to amend was ever requested, and nothing in Plaintiff's opposition papers filed with the district court or in his brief on appeal asserted facts supporting his claim. A party, not the court, is responsible for initiating amendments, particularly when the party knows the sufficiency of his complaint is at issue.

Next, the Court affirms dismissal of the Dodd-Frank Act claims, but for reasons different than those on which the district court relied. It notes, as did the district court, the split of authority on whether an individual who reports violations internally, as opposed to one who reports directly to the SEC, qualifies as a whistleblower under Dodd-Frank. Rather than address that question, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims fail to meet Twombly's fundamental plausibility standard. Indeed, the complaint contained only a conclusory allegation of cooperation with the SEC, but was without additional factual content that would allow the Court to draw reasonable inferences of defendant's liability. Courts are not bound to accept as true legal conclusions masquerading as factual allegations, and the few factual allegations asserted were insufficient to cross the threshold between possibility and plausibility. 

In his appellate brief, Plaintiff stated that he never asserted a Sarbanes-Oxley claim; accordingly, the Court does not address that cause of action.

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.