Close X
Attorney Spotlight

In addition to Mark Manner's busy corporate legal practice, he has established himself as a respected and avid astronomer. Read 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

Blueprint for an IPO

Companies go public to raise capital to fuel growth, pay down debt and provide liquidity to shareholders. Although all issuers and offerings are different, the basic process of going public remains relatively constant. Blueprint for an IPO identifies the key players, details the process and identifies the obligations companies will face after going public.

Read now

Chris Lazarini Examines Whether a Commodity Futures Contract is a "Security"

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

March 16, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini examined a case in which the appellate court upheld a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff, finding commodity futures contracts are not "securities" and Plaintiff, who was trading them for defendant's account, was not required to register as an investment adviser in order to receive fees for his trading activities. 

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.

Stevens vs. S.W.L.H.S. Investment Partners, No. L-15-1129 (Ohio App., 6Dist., 2/3/17) 

*A commodity futures contract is not a "security" under Ohio law. 

**A commodity pool operator may be exempt from registration if the pool has less than 15 participants and the total gross capital contributions received by the operator for units in the pool do not exceed $400,000. 

Stevens traded commodities futures for his own account online. In 2007, his friend Jim Sun asked Stevens to trade on his behalf. After additional discussions, Sun and members of his family created S.W.L.H.S. Investment Partners ("SWLHS"), opened an online account at TradeStation, and gave trading authority to Stevens. The partnership agreement and a separate agreement between Stevens and Sun both included clauses stating that Stevens' fee would be 40% of the net trading profits generated each year and that he would not be paid if the account suffered losses. In 2007, SWLHS recorded a $493,000 loss, and Stevens received no compensation. In 2008 and 2009, SWLHS recorded $2.06 million in net profits. After receiving only $288,000 in fees, Stevens filed a breach of contract action. Following a jury trial, Stevens was awarded the remaining $535,000 he claimed he was owed, plus attorneys' fees and costs. 

SWLHS raised several assignments of error on appeal, including the contention that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment or directing a verdict in its favor because Stevens was not registered as an investment adviser or commodities pool operator. Absent proper licensure, SWLHS claimed, Stevens was not entitled to fees.

Conducting a de novo review, the Court affirms the trial court's rejection of these arguments. First, under Ohio law, an investment adviser is a person who, for compensation, advises others on the value of securities or on the advisability of purchasing or selling securities. Noting the absence of futures contracts in the definition of "security" under Ohio law, and the "overwhelming" weight of federal case law, the Court finds that the futures contracts traded by Stevens were not "securities" and that Stevens therefore did not have to register as an investment adviser under Ohio law.

Second, the Court agrees with the trial court that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the commodity pool operator question. Those issues included whether Stevens solicited, accepted, or received funds from SWLHS, essential elements of the commodity pool operator definition. They also included whether Stevens' operation, even if it met the commodity pool operator definition, was exempt from registration as a "small pool," having less than 15 participants and less than $400,000 in gross capital contributions. 

The Court reversed the award of attorneys' fees and costs, finding no contractual provision, statute, or bad faith to justify their award. It also denied SWLHS' assignments of error challenging several of the trial court's evidentiary rulings and its request for a reversal on the weight of the 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.