Close X
Attorney Spotlight

After finishing her first year as an associate at Bass, Berry & Sims, find out what advice Margaret Dodson offers to new attorneys. 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 Provides Insight on Waiving Contractual Right to Arbitration

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

May 8, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on factors a court should consider when determining whether a party has waived a contractual right to arbitration. The factors, which are tied to potential prejudice to the non-moving party, include: (1) the time elapsed between commencement of litigation and the request for arbitration, and (2) the extent to which the moving party has participated in the litigation process. 

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.

Chehebar vs. Oak Financial Group, Inc., No. 14-2982 (E.D. N.Y., 3/7/17) 

The key to determining whether a party has waived a contractual right to arbitration is prejudice to the non-moving party; factors to consider include: (1) the time elapsed between commencement of litigation and the request for arbitration and (2) the extent to which the moving party has participated in the litigation process. 

In 2009, Plaintiffs opened several accounts with Oak Financial, and executed the firm's Advisory Agreement. The Agreement called for arbitration of disputes "in accordance with the securities arbitration rules then in effect with the [NASD]." The relationship was short-lived, as nine months after opening the accounts, Plaintiffs claimed that the firm and its principal officer failed to follow their directions, causing them to lose almost $1 million in profits.

In April 2014, Plaintiffs filed a state court action, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. Defendants answered, and then removed the case to the Federal Court. Once in Federal Court, Plaintiffs sought leave to move to compel arbitration and for a stay. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings and, it appears, convinced the Court to hold Plaintiffs' motion in abeyance. No discovery was taken, and the Court granted Defendants' motion on the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, but denied it on the breach of contract claim (see summary below). Plaintiffs then filed their motion to compel arbitration. Defendants opposed, arguing that Plaintiffs waived their right to seek arbitration by filing the state court complaint and participating in the Federal Court proceedings. In their response, Plaintiffs claimed they had filed with FINRA in March 2013, only to have FINRA reject the claim because Defendants were not broker/dealers and had not consented to arbitration. Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendants refused their request to consent to FINRA arbitration. Defendants claimed not to have knowledge of the arbitration filing and denied that they were asked to consent to it.

It is unclear whether these arguments were supported by affidavit, and the Court ignores them, focusing instead on the prejudice and waiver issues. First, the Court finds no prejudice because little time passed between the commencement of litigation and the filing of Plaintiffs' motion. Second, it finds no prejudice because discovery was not conducted, and Plaintiffs' only affirmative act was to seek arbitration. Third, the Court finds no prejudice because Defendants could not establish they had incurred excessive costs. Finally, the Court finds no waiver in Plaintiffs' mere filing of the complaint. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration and stays the case pending its outcome. 

The PDAA alone does not create FINRA jurisdiction. Rather, FINRA considers this scenario an elective arbitration and provides complaining clients with a special written submission agreement, which they and the investment advisory firm must sign before FINRA will take jurisdiction. See FINRA Rule 12201 (parties "may" arbitrate under FINRA's Code if they "agree in writing to submit the dispute to arbitration under the Code after the dispute arises"). Under Section 3 of the FAA, the Court, having determined that the dispute was arbitrable, should not have ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, and one wonders whether Plaintiffs will seek an interlocutory appeal before arbitration or otherwise try to revive the dismissed claims in arbitration.


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.