Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Brianna Powell's work as a law clerk prepare her for practicing law? Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

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

Chris Lazarini Discusses Definition of "Customer" under FINRA Rule 12200

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

May 31, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed the court's interpretation of "customer" under FINRA Rule 12200 in a case where a clearing firm sought to avoid arbitration. The court defines a "customer" as one who, while not a broker or dealer, either (1) purchases goods or services from a FINRA member or (2) has an account with a FINRA member.

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.

Wilson-Davis & Co., Inc. vs. Mirgliotta, No. 1:16 CV 3056 (N.D. Ohio, 4/28/17) 

*Courts generally interpret the term "customer" in FINRA Rule 12200 as one who, while not a broker or dealer, either (1) purchases goods or services from a FINRA member or (2) has an account with a FINRA member.

**Allegations of negligent supervision may arise "in connection with" a broker-dealer's business activities, within the meaning of FINRA Rule 12200, even where the broker-dealer's agents cause a customer to make investments away from the firm. 

After being defrauded of more than $700,000 by a group of recidivist brokers, the Mirgliottas commenced FINRA arbitration proceedings against the brokers, various broker-dealers, and Wilson-Davis, a clearing firm which had held the bulk of the Mirgliottas' retirement assets prior to the fraud. Wilson-Davis sought to enjoin the arbitration claims against it, citing the Mirgliottas' allegation that their account opening documents were forged and arguing that they were not its "customers" under FINRA rules.

The Court disagrees. Even accepting the alleged forgery of the documents and the absence of a written agreement to arbitrate, the Mirgliottas were Wilson-Davis "customers" under FINRA Rule 12200. The Court defines a "customer" as one who, while not a broker or dealer, either (1) purchases goods or services from a FINRA member or (2) has an account with a FINRA member. Here, the Mirgliottas discussed opening an account at Wilson-Davis with one of the brokers, had an account at Wilson-Davis, and received statements from Wilson-Davis. Given these facts, Wilson-Davis may not rely on the forged signatures to avoid arbitration.

Looking again to Rule 12200, the Court also finds that the Mirgliottas' failure to supervise allegations arose "in connection with" Wilson-Davis' business activities on transactions in the Wilson-Davis accounts, and even on those occurring away from Wilson-Davis, where the Mirgliottas alleged that the brokers caused them to withdraw funds from their accounts to make investments away from the firm. The Court does not, however, extend the "in connection with" standard to transactions occurring prior to the opening of the Wilson-Davis accounts.

Applying the facts to the standards for injunctive relief, the Court finds that Wilson-Davis failed to demonstrate that requiring it to arbitrate will cause an irreparable injury and further finds that the balance of the hardships favor the Mirgliottas. Therefore, it directs the parties to proceed to FINRA arbitration for resolution of the merits of all claims, except those before the Wilson-Davis accounts were opened. 

The recidivist brokers were charged with various crimes by the DOJ and others and either pled guilty or were tried and convicted.


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.