Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did a clerkship with Judge Merritt change the way Chris Climo approaches the practice of law? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

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

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

Chris Lazarini Analyzes Challenge to Amended MSRB Political Contribution Rules

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

September 1, 2017

Chris Lazarini | Contributing Legal Editor | Securities Litigation CommentatorBass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed a challenge brought by three Republican state party organizations related to the legality of the 2016 Amendments to MSRB Rule G-37 barring brokers and dealers from soliciting business from municipal issuers for a period of two years after a firm or its associates makes more than the legal minimum contribution ($250) to state or municipal officeholders having influence over issuing municipal securities. The Court halted the challenge ruling that parties challenging the legality of amendments to a self-regulatory organization's rules only have standing to do so if their injury was caused by the amendments, as opposed to the original 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.

Tennessee Republican Party vs. SEC & Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, No. 16-3360 (6th Cir., 7/13/17) 

*A threshold issue in any case is whether the plaintiff has standing to pursue his claims.

**Parties challenging the legality of amendments to a self-regulatory organization's rules only have standing to do so if their injury was caused by the amendments, as opposed to the original rule. 

Petitioners, who are three Republican state party organizations, sought to challenge the legality of the 2016 Amendments to MSRB Rule G-37 and several related rules. Rule G-37 bars brokers and dealers from soliciting business from municipal issuers for a period of two years after a firm or its associates makes more than the legal minimum contributions ($250) to state or municipal officeholders having influence over issuing municipal securities. The Rule and several related rules also impose disclosure and recordkeeping requirements on covered entities. The 2016 Amendments, brought on by the expanded reach granted the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, extended the Rule's limitations and disclosure and recordkeeping requirements to municipal advisors and their third-party solicitors. To support their challenge, Petitioners submitted affidavits from their respective executive directors.

The Court stops the challenge before it starts, finding that Petitioners lack standing to challenge the Amendments. To invoke federal jurisdiction, it explains, Petitioners must show an "injury in fact." Here, Petitioners' claimed injury is not self-evident, as there is no reason why Petitioners could not have put forth an affidavit from a particular municipal advisor who would have contributed more than $250 to Petitioners or their candidates were it not for the 2016 Amendments. The Court disregards the reference in the affidavit of one Petitioner to an individual who purportedly would have made an excess contribution but for the Rule, because the affidavit lacks information that would allow the Court to determine whether that person would have been prohibited from contributing by Rule G-37's reach before the 2016 Amendments. Petitioners' conflation of the original Rule with the 2016 Amendments similarly renders it impossible for the Court to determine whether the 2016 Amendments harm Petitioners in either their individual capacity or as a representative member of their organizations.

Furthermore, the Affidavits are ambiguous with respect to whether the Rule harms the political parties because brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (originally covered by Rule G-37) are allegedly not contributing and soliciting or because municipal advisors and their third-party solicitors are not contributing and soliciting (covered only by the amendments). Only clearly showing the latter instance would support standing, the Court explains. Moreover, one Affidavit’s suggestion that the 2016 Amendments might cause persons not to contribute is precisely the type of speculation that does not establish standing. Finding no injury in fact, the Court concludes that Petitioners lack standing to pursue their challenge. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has established a three-part test for standing. First, the plaintiff must show an "injury in fact;" i.e., that he has suffered "an invasion of a legally protected interest" that is "concrete and particularized," and is "actual or imminent," and not "conjectural or hypothetical." Second, he must show a causal connection between his injury and the conduct complained of. Finally, it must be "likely," not "speculative" that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).


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.