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 Waiver of the Right to Seek Arbitration

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

July 17, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini commented on a case in which the defendant filed fraud and RICO actions in federal court against several persons and entities alleging they defrauded her out of millions of dollars. The defendant subsequently filed FINRA arbitrations against broker/dealers and others who had not been parties to the federal court actions. The broker/dealers sought injunctive relief, arguing the defendant waived her right to pursue claims against them in arbitration because she took discovery from them in the federal court actions. The Court denied the motion, stating a party who litigates claims against one group of defendants is not barred from arbitrating related claims against a different group of defendants.

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.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. vs. Jordan, Nos. 17-cv-49 & -199 (D. Del., 4/27/17)

A party who litigates claims against one group of defendants is not barred from arbitrating related claims against a different group of defendants.

These matters arise out of Defendant's claim that her ex-husband and several others defrauded her out of millions of dollars. Defendant first sued the alleged malefactors in a fraud action (the "Fraud Action") and later sued multiple parties in a separate RICO action. Both Merrill Lynch and J.P. Morgan Securities ("JPMS"), non-parties to the Fraud and RICO actions, responded to third-party document subpoenas in the RICO action. A representative of Merrill Lynch was also deposed. The district court dismissed the RICO action. Discovery in the RICO action was deemed to have been completed in the Fraud Action, which remains pending. Defendant then filed two FINRA arbitrations, one against Merrill Lynch and another against JPMS, a JPMS representative ("Cohen"), JP Morgan Chase and Co. ("JPM"), JP Morgan Chase Bank ("JPChase") and Chase Bank ("Chase") (collectively the "Chase Entities"). Merrill Lynch and the Chase Entities sought injunctive relief from the Court, arguing Defendant waived her right to pursue claims against them in arbitration.

The Court denies the motions. First, JPM, JPChase and Chase lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they are not FINRA members and are not compelled by FINRA's rules to participate in the arbitration. Here, these entities failed to show they suffered an injury-in-fact, since they already declined to participate in the arbitration. Second, Merrill Lynch, JPMS and Cohen (collectively the "Arbitration Respondents") failed to prove a likelihood of success on the merits. Although it defers to FINRA's interpretation of its rules, the Court notes that FINRA Rule 12200 allows for arbitration of disputes between a customer and a member or associated person if the dispute "arises in connection with the business activities of the member or the associated person." As to JPMS and Cohen, the Court points to allegations in the statement of claim regarding misuse of a JPMS brokerage account and Cohen's involvement in a cover-up. As to all Arbitration Respondents, Defendant did not waive her right to pursue arbitration and the Arbitration Respondents have not been prejudiced.

The Court puts little weight on Defendant's filing of the Fraud and RICO actions several years before commencing the arbitrations, instead deeming the arbitrations timely because they are the first instance of litigation against the Arbitration Respondents. Similarly, the Arbitration Respondents were not prejudiced by the court actions because the arbitrations are the first, and only, time the merits of the claims against them have been put in issue. The Court discounts the fact that discovery was taken from the Arbitration Respondents in the RICO action, finding the time, effort and expense of defending third-party discovery minimal when compared to that which a party to the action expends.

Finally, the Court finds no irreparable harm. The argument that arbitration costs create irreparable harm fails because arbitration is the preferred vehicle through which FINRA members resolve customer disputes. The Court also rejects the Arbitration Respondents' concerns over the timeliness of the claims, pointing to FINRA's six-year eligibility rule. Moreover, if Defendant files a time-barred court action after an arbitration panel rejects her claims under the six-year rule, the appropriate remedy would be a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, not an anticipatory request for injunctive relief.


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.