Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Mike DeAgro's experience co-founding a nonprofit advocacy organization lead to a career in the legal field? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more


Envision Healthcare

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

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Chris Lazarini Discusses Challenge to Dischargeability of Claim Against Broker in Bankruptcy

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

December 28, 2017

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed an adversary proceeding brought against a broker by a plaintiff seeking recovery of investment losses. After the plaintiff filed a FINRA arbitration, the broker filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action. The arbitration stayed, the plaintiff responded by challenging the dischargeability of the broker's alleged debt. Denying the broker's motion for judgment on the pleadings, the bankruptcy court ruled the broker/debtor could not automatically escape the potential debt because the court could decide the merits of plaintiff's state securities law claims under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(19). 

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.

Butler, In Re: Dorsch vs. Butler, No. 17-22141, Adv. Proc. No. 17-02169 (E.D. Wis., Bankr., 11/6/17) 

A debtor may not escape a debt in bankruptcy if the debt arises from false pretenses, false representations or actual fraud; or from fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement or larceny; or from violating a securities law resulting in a judgment, settlement or administrative order. 

In 2014, Plaintiff opened an account with Butler as her broker and made a cash deposit. Butler told Plaintiff he was developing a long-term investment strategy for selected clients and invested her funds in what Plaintiff alleged to be aggressive, high-risk stocks. After the purchases had been made, Butler asked Plaintiff to sign a wealth management agreement. Concerned about her investments, Plaintiff refused and filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions ("Department"). After reviewing the matter, the Department sent a letter to Butler's counsel "requesting" that Butler and his firm refund all advisory fees charged and "consider" settling with Plaintiff on her investment losses. Butler refunded the advisory fees, but an agreement could not be reached on the investment losses. Plaintiff filed a FINRA arbitration, which was stayed when Butler filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action. Plaintiff then filed this adversary proceeding to challenge the dischargeability of Butler's "debt" to her, attaching her FINRA Statement of Claim to her complaint. Butler answered, with a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, and moved for judgment on the pleadings. 

The Court examines whether the "debt" is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2) (false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud), §523(a)(4) (fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity) or §523(a)(19) (violation of securities law resulting in a judgment, settlement agreement or order). First, Plaintiff failed to state a claim for false pretenses, false representation or fraud under §523(a)(2). The only representation Butler was alleged to have made is that he was developing a long-term investment strategy. On the face of the pleadings, the Court finds this statement was not false or made with reckless disregard for the truth or with the intent to deceive Plaintiff. Next, although the Court finds Butler was a fiduciary under §523(a)(4), the defalcation standard is not met because Butler's investment in publicly traded securities was neither an intentional wrong nor criminally reckless.

Finally, turning to §523(a)(19), the Court finds Plaintiff stated a claim for violation of the state securities laws, but finds the Department's letter requesting that Butler consider a settlement with Plaintiff insufficient to meet the judgment, settlement agreement or order requirement. However, because §523(a)(19) allows for the judgment or order to be entered in a federal or state judicial proceeding, including a bankruptcy proceeding, after the Chapter 7 petition has been filed, the Court denies Butler's motion for judgment on the pleadings, allowing Plaintiff to move forward with her adversary claim. 

Before getting to the merits of Butler's motion, which requires it to accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiff's "pleadings," the Court questions whether it should consider the allegations in Plaintiff's FINRA Statement of Claim, which she attached to her complaint. The Court says it is a "debatable" issue, but because Butler addressed the FINRA claims in his pleadings, the Court "assumes" the allegations were appropriately incorporated into the Complaint.


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.