Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Learn about Richard Arnholt's diverse government contracts practice and why he chose to pursue a career in the legal field. Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2017, Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ: PNFP) closed a $1.9 billion merger with BNC Bancorp (NASDAQ: BNCN) pursuant to which BNC merged with and into Pinnacle. With the completion of the transaction, Pinnacle becomes a Top 50 U.S. Bank. The merger will create a four state footprint concentrated in 12 of the largest urban markets in the Southeast. 

Bass, Berry & Sims has served Pinnacle as primary corporate and securities counsel for more than 15 years and served as counsel on the transaction. Our attorneys were involved in all aspects related to the agreement, including tax, employee benefits and litigation. 

Read more details about the transaction here.

Pinnacle Financial Partners logo

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 Examines Cause for Denial of Criminal Justice Act Funds

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

August 3, 2017

Chris Lazarini | Contributing Legal Editor | Securities Litigation CommentatorBass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini examined a case in which an indigent defendant sought to obtain Criminal Justice Act (CJA) funds to retain an expert. The court denied the defendant access to CJA funds because the defendant did not prove that (1) the expert was necessary to mount a plausible defense and (2) the defendant's case would be prejudiced without the funds.

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.

USA vs. Stauffer, No. 16-1951 (6th Cir., 6/19/17)

An indigent defendant seeking to obtain Criminal Justice Act funds to retain an expert must show (1) engaging the expert is necessary for the defendant to mount a plausible defense and (2) the defendant's case would be prejudiced without the funds.

Defendant was charged with wire fraud and money laundering in a foreign-currency-exchange Ponzi scheme. The prosecution offered testimony from victims and an employee of Interactive Brokers ("IB"), an internet-based brokerage. The victims testified they gave money to Defendant to trade foreign currencies and received from him payments on "profitable" trades and account statements purporting to show trading activity and the balance of a pooled IB account. When the payments stopped, Defendant told victims his IB account had been hacked and significant funds had been lost in trades placed by the hacker. The IB employee testified that the victims' IB statements were fake, because the trades reflected on the victim statements were not in IB's database. He also testified that, although Defendant opened two IB accounts, one was never funded and the other only minimally funded. Defendant did not testify, but argued in closing that the hacking story was true, pointing to the absence of templates on Defendant's computer from which Defendant could have forged IB statements. The jury found Defendant guilty.

On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court erred in denying him Criminal Justice Act ("CJA") funds to hire a digital-forensic expert whom, he claimed, would locate metadata on his computer supporting his hacking claim. Reviewing the district court's denial of CJA funds for abuse of discretion, the Court finds no abuse. To obtain CJA funds, an indigent defendant must show that engaging the expert is necessary to mount a plausible defense and that defendant's case would be prejudiced without the funds. Here, Defendant's friends raised money to retain defense counsel, who substituted in for Defendant's court-appointed counsel and represented to the district court that funds sufficient to mount a defense were in place. The Court agrees with the district court's assessment that the need for CJA funds was foreseeable and should have been addressed when Defendant substituted counsel. The Court also points out that before denying the motion for CJA funds, the district court suggested that Defendant move in a parallel CFTC action to unfreeze Defendant's assets to pay the forensic expert, but Defendant did not heed that suggestion.

Finally, the Court agrees with the district court's doubts that an expert would benefit the defense, noting the absence of evidence that IB's database had also been hacked, an event which would have been necessary to delete trading activity from its database, and citing the testimony of an IRS agent who traced the cash flow in Defendant's personal bank accounts and established that it closely tracked Defendant's receipt of deposits from, and issuance of payments to, victims. Because CJA funds were not necessary for Defendant to present a plausible defense and because Defendant was not prejudiced without those funds, the Court finds the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying them.

Defendant also objected to his 120-month sentence and, in particular, to the application of a four-level enhancement for violation of commodities law and a two-level adjustment for willfully obstructing or attempting to obstruct the investigation, prosecution or sentencing of his crimes. The Court agrees with the district court's finding with respect to the former because Defendant engaged in a business in the "nature of" a commodities pool and acknowledged accepting investor funds to be part of a forex fund he would trade. It likewise agrees that he met the conditions for the obstruction enhancement when, before surrendering his computer to the CFTC in a parallel enforcement proceeding, he backed up the computer files onto a hard drive that he did not surrender and ran two programs on his computer intended to delete files and make them unrecoverable.


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.