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 Comments on When Appellate Courts May Consider Arguments Not Raised Below

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

June 8, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini commented on a case in which a former commodities broker appealed a decision ordering him to pay restitution to his former firm which had made its customers whole after the broker's unauthorized trades caused them to incur losses. On appeal, the broker argued, for the first time, the district court erred in directing him to make legal restitution of the losses incurred, as opposed to equitable restitution of his unlawful gains. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment award, finding the broker waived his arguments on the distinction between legal and equitable restitution by not making them below and finding no exceptional circumstances justifying a deviation from the waiver rule.

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. Miklovich, No. 15-4426 (6th Cir., 4/19/17) 

*Arguments not raised at the district court level are deemed waived on appeal.

**Courts may deviate from appellate waiver in exceptional circumstances, such as where necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to promote finality of litigation. 

In 2013, commodities broker Miklovich placed multiple unauthorized futures trades in the accounts of two customers, causing them $566,000 in losses. After terminating him, his former firm unwound the transactions and made its customers whole. The CFTC brought an enforcement action against Miklovich and, following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the CFTC, ordering Miklovich to make full restitution to his former firm, fining him $100,000, and permanently enjoining him from committing future violations of the commodity laws (SLA 2015-40). 

Miklovich seeks to appeal the restitution award, arguing that the district court erred in directing him to make legal restitution of the losses incurred, as opposed to equitable restitution of his unlawful gains (which, he claimed, were not established below). Noting the absence of even a colorable argument about the distinction between legal and equitable restitution below, the Court deems the arguments waived. Miklovich asks the Court to exercise its discretion and consider his forfeited arguments anyway because, he argues, the remedies set out in 7 U.S.C. §13a-1(d) are "beyond doubt" and allowing the legal restitution award to stand would cause a "miscarriage of justice."

The Court disagrees. First, the plain language of the statute provides for various remedies, including (1) "restitution to persons who have sustained losses proximately caused by the violation (in the amount of the losses)" and (2) disgorgement of gains. It is nonsensical, therefore, to read the statute as limited solely to equitable restitution. Second, allowing Miklovich to make his forfeited argument is contrary to the concept of promoting finality to the litigation because the CFTC did not have the opportunity in the district court to prove a basis for equitable restitution if Miklovich prevailed on the arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Finding no exceptional circumstances militating against the waiver finding, the Court affirms the award of summary judgment.


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.