Close X
Attorney Spotlight

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


Close X


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 Court's Decision to Stay Proceedings Involving Non-Arbitrable Claims Pending the Outcome of an Arbitration

Securities Litigation Commentator


September 26, 2017
Chris Lazarini | Contributing Legal Editor | Securities Litigation Commentator

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed a case involving claims against one defendant that are arbitrable and claims against a second defendant that are not. Exercising its discretion, the court stayed the proceedings as to the non-arbitrable claims pending the outcome of the arbitration.

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.

Roman vs. UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico, No. 12-1663 (D. P.R., 8/21/17) 

*In the First Circuit, a court may dismiss, rather than stay, a case when all issues before the Court are arbitrable.

**When a case involves claims against one defendant that are arbitrable and related to claims against a second defendant that are not arbitrable, the court has discretion to stay the non-arbitrable claims pending the outcome of the arbitration. 

This case was originally filed as a putative class action against broker-dealer UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico ("UBS-PR"), two UBS-PR executive officers (the "Individual Defendants"), UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico ("UBS Trust") and six closed-end management investment companies (the "UBS Bond Funds"). The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (SLA 2016-48). The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit then denied Plaintiffs' Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition seeking leave for immediate appeal of the class certification issue.

Now, the Court considers the motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration filed by UBS-PR and the Individual Defendants. Despite the prior proceedings, Plaintiffs' sole argument in opposition is that the matter should be maintained as a class action. The Court deems Plaintiffs' argument another request for reconsideration and rejects it. It acknowledges that Plaintiffs' UBS-PR client agreements would bar arbitration if this were a class action, but notes that it is not, restating its earlier rationale for denying class certification. Here, UBS-PR and the Individual Defendants meet their burden of showing a valid agreement containing an arbitration clause that captures the claims asserted against them. Deciding that all issues before it as to the moving defendants are arbitrable, the Court dismisses, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' claims against UBS-PR and the Individual Defendants. As to the claims against UBS Trust and the UBS Bond Funds, which are not subject to an arbitration agreement, the Court finds them inextricably entwined with the arbitrable claims and, exercising its discretion, stays those claims pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Related Professionals

Related Services


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.