Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jessie Zeigler anticipate the intersection of privacy and smart technology will impact the future of litigation? 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

Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist

The complex and ever-changing healthcare regulatory and enforcement environment, including increased focus on the role of private equity firms in their portfolio companies, make compliance a top priority for private equity firms investing in healthcare companies. The best way to limit your exposure as a private equity firm is to avoid a compliance misstep in the first place. Additionally, an effective and robust compliance program for your portfolio healthcare company makes it much more attractive to potential buyers and helps you avoid an unexpected and costly investigation or valuation hit down the road. Download the Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist to assess whether your portfolio company's compliance program is up-to-date.

Click here to download the checklist.

Chris Lazarini Discusses Recoupment of Civil and Criminal Penalties under Bankruptcy Code

Securities Online Litigation Alert

Publications

March 8, 2018

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case in which the defendant – who had pleaded guilty in a criminal case to one count of fraud under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and one count of money laundering, and was sentenced to 135 months in prison and ordered to pay $2.1 million in restitution to his victims and who had received a discharge in bankruptcy – challenged the parallel civil complaint brought by the CFTC alleging violations of the CEA. The defendant claimed that because he had been discharged in bankruptcy and ordered to pay restitution in the criminal case, the CFTC claims should be dismissed. The court rejected both arguments, holding that under the bankruptcy code, penalties payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit are not dischargeable and the relief sought by the CFTC was different than the restitution he was ordered to pay in the criminal case.

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Online Litigation Alert (SOLA). 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 SOLA, please visit the SOLA website to sign up for the newsletter.

CFTC vs. OTC Investments LLC & Taylor, No. 1:15-cv-00081 (W.D. N.C., 1/19/18) 

*Under the bankruptcy code, penalties payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit are not dischargeable. 

**A person who violates the Commodity Exchange Act may be subject to civil penalties, orders of restitution or disgorgement and injunctive relief. 

Taylor engaged in an illegal scheme in which he solicited investments in a commodity pool that would trade foreign currency contracts and instead misappropriated the funds for his own use. The CFTC filed a civil complaint alleging that Taylor violated the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA"). In a parallel criminal case, Taylor pled guilty to one count of fraud under the CEA and one count of money laundering, and was sentenced to 135 months in prison and ordered to pay $2.1 million in restitution to his victims. While the civil and criminal proceedings were ongoing, Taylor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, in which he received an order of discharge.

Returning to the CFTC's civil case, Taylor moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that any indebtedness he might owe the CFTC was discharged in bankruptcy. Taylor also argued that, because he was ordered to pay restitution in the criminal proceeding, any additional judgment in the civil action would violate the rule against double recovery.

The Court rejects both arguments, finding that the CFTC sought a civil monetary penalty payable to it, not restitution for Taylor's victims. Under the Bankruptcy Code, penalties payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit are not dischargeable. Noting that restitution (the amount lost by victims) and civil penalties (the amount gained by defendants) are often awarded in the same civil action, the Court has no trouble rejecting the double recovery argument.

The Court then considers the CFTC's cross-motion for summary judgment and finds that Taylor is collaterally estopped from defending the claims, because the same facts and issues were resolved when Taylor elected to plead guilty in the criminal proceeding. Moreover, even if collateral estoppel does not apply, the CFTC is entitled to summary judgment, "because the undisputed forecast of the evidence" reveals that Taylor violated the CEA by misrepresenting and omitting material facts to actual and potential pool participants and misappropriating participants' funds. Noting that it has discretion in determining the appropriate civil monetary penalty based on the gravity of the offense, the Court orders Taylor to pay a $1 million civil penalty to the CFTC. Finally, the Court permanently enjoins Taylor from engaging in commodities trading.


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.