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 Arbitration Clause's Application to Non-Signatory

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

August 28, 2017

Chris Lazarini | Contributing Legal Editor | Securities Litigation CommentatorBass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case involving a Plaintiff's suit against a broker-dealer involving his deceased mother's IRA account. Although Plaintiff was a non-signatory to the IRA account agreement, the court enforced the agreement's arbitration clause and compelled Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims.

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.

Aikens vs. Johnson & Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 16-729 (M.D. La., 7/28/17) 

*A non-signatory to a contract containing a valid pre-dispute arbitration clause may be compelled to arbitrate if his claims arise as a third-party beneficiary to the contract.

**A court may stay litigation and allow arbitration even where some parties are not subject to arbitration.

In 1993, pro se Plaintiff's mother opened an IRA account and named Plaintiff as one of eight beneficiaries. Merrill's IRA Agreement contained a standard arbitration clause compelling arbitration of "all controversies" arising between Plaintiff and Merrill involving "any transaction or the construction, performance, or breach of this or any other agreement between us[.]" By 2001, Plaintiff's mother had withdrawn her IRA funds and the account was closed. She passed away in early 2006. Sometime later, Plaintiff sued Merrill and Johnson (the registered representative of record), alleging fraud and theft of his inheritance.

Both Merrill and Johnson moved to dismiss, with Merrill also asking, in the alternative, for a stay pending arbitration. Plaintiff opposed, claiming no knowledge of the arbitration agreement. Characterizing Plaintiff's opposition as an improper legal challenge and citing his claimed third-party beneficiary status, the Court holds Plaintiff to the arbitration provision of the IRA Agreement and stays the case pending arbitration. Rather than weigh in on whether the IRA Agreement applies to the claims against Johnson, however, it denies the latter's motion to dismiss without prejudice, stating that he may re-urge dismissal at the conclusion of the 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.