Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Jennifer L. Brandon Appointed to the Technology Committee of the State Bar of Arizona

 
PHOENIX, Ariz. (September 1, 2015) – Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., a leading Phoenix-based law firm, is pleased to announce that Jennifer L. Brandon has been appointed to the Technology Committee of the State Bar of Arizona for a three-year term.
 
The Technology Committee of the State Bar of Arizona is a standing committee that was established for the purpose of addressing the challenges and opportunities arising from the increased use and advances in technology, and taking full advantage of these advancements in the legal profession.
 
“I’m very excited to be appointed to the Technology Committee of the State Bar of Arizona,” stated Brandon, Litigation Support Project Manager at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon. “I look forward to assisting the State Bar in addressing technology advancements in the legal field, and continuing to apply those principles at Jennings Strouss.”
 
Brandon provides paralegal and technology support for complex litigation matters. Her role includes providing support to the firm’s litigation efforts through the use of technology. Brandon is responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of litigation databases, electronic discovery planning, and development of policies and procedures related to discovery obligations. In addition, she assists with document review management, consulting between legal teams, and clients and preparation of production protocols between parties.
 
Brandon is an adjunct faculty member of Phoenix College and teaches Litigation Technology in the paralegal program. She is also an active member of the Phoenix Chapter of Women in eDiscovery. Brandon is a Certified Concordance Software Administrator and a LAW Pre-Discovery Certified Software Administrator.
 
About Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C.
Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., has been providing legal counsel for over 70 years through its offices in Phoenix and Peoria, Arizona; and Washington, D.C. The firm's primary areas of practice include agribusiness; bankruptcy, reorganization and creditors’ rights; construction; corporate and securities; employee benefits and pensions; energy; family law and domestic relations; health care; intellectual property; labor and employment; legal ethics; litigation; professional liability defense; real estate; surety and fidelity; tax; and trust and estates. For additional information please visit
www.jsslaw.com and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.
 
The firm’s affiliate, B3 Strategies, assists clients with lobbying and public policy strategy at the local, state, and federal levels. For more information please visit www.b3strategies.com.
 
~JSS~

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Contractual Arbitration Provisions: Are They Worth Keeping in Your Business Contracts?

 
Garrett J. Olexa
Arbitration of grievances is one of the oldest forms of alternative dispute resolution. The Federal Arbitration Act passed in 1925, and over the years the United States Supreme Court has rendered a number of decisions that solidified its use as a form of alternative dispute resolution. By the mid-1980s the American Arbitration Association experienced a significant spike in the use of its services. Some of the reasons private arbitration gained in popularity was it was seen as a more expeditious and economical alternative to traditional litigation. Another reason some favored arbitration was the finality of the arbitrator’s decision. That is, once the arbitrator’s decision was handed down, there were extremely limited grounds upon which it could be overturned. As arbitration gained in popularity, arbitration provisions stating all disputes were subject to private arbitration were inserted into more and more business contracts. However, in more recent years, in many ways, arbitrations have more closely resembled traditional litigation and the finality which was once so desired has come to be seen by many businesses as reason not to invoke arbitration.
 
For instance, while once a less costly alternative to filing a lawsuit, today some private arbitrations can be just as costly, and, at times, even more costly than litigation. In addition to incurring expenses typically found in litigation (e.g. witness fees, attorneys’ fees and discovery costs), arbitration costs will also include administrative fees and hourly charges for the arbitrator’s time.
 
In addition, although arbitration was once perceived to be a much faster process, it is not uncommon for business disputes resolved through arbitration to take just as long, or longer, than similar litigated matters. While arbitrations were traditionally engaged in with little discovery, today many arbitration hearings are preceded by extensive discovery.
 
While the purported finality of an arbitration decision has long been identified as one of its benefits, it has also come to be seen as one of its greatest drawbacks. In arbitration, there is very little recourse for the party rendered a losing decision, even if it is legally incorrect. An arbitration award, generally, may only be challenged if the impacted party can clearly demonstrate that arbitrator was corrupt, biased, or exceeded his or her authority; however, such challenges are often very difficult to prove. Even a challenge based on the arbitrator having exceeded his or her authority is a narrow one. Just because an arbitrator makes errors of fact or law does not mean he or she exceeded authority. Further, many arbitration provisions do not clearly spell out the scope of arbitrator’s authority. In such instances, it is unlikely that an arbitrator will be found to have exceeded authority for awarding things such as punitive damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, interest, or even sanctions. Basically, the arbitrator can misapply the law or err with respect to factual determinations and there is nothing the losing party can do, unlike with litigation where judges’ decisions are subject to appellate review. Given that an arbitration award has the same binding effect as a judgment (i.e. it bars a second suit involving the same parties based on the same cause of action, transaction or occurrence), having a binding award against you with very little recourse can have a potentially significant impact on your business.
 
In short, while arbitration was once seen as a more efficient, less costly alternative to litigation, in many instances those businesses with arbitration agreements now face similar shortcomings to litigation, a lack of predictability in the outcome, and the absence of the opportunity to have a mistakenly rendered award reversed. Thus, if you are a business whose standard business contract includes an arbitration provision, it may be time to meet with an attorney to assess whether arbitration is still the best form of alternative dispute resolution for your business and, if it is, to ensure that the arbitration provision in your contract is specifically tailored to maximize the benefit to your business.
 
*Garrett Olexa is a member with the law firm of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC. He practices in the areas of business law and commercial litigation.  Mr. Olexa can be contacted at golexa@jsslaw.com or 623.878.2222.

Understanding Radius Restrictions in Commercial Leases




Radius restrictions are common in commercial leases that include a percentage rent provision, under which a tenant pays a percentage of the revenue generated from its premises in addition to base rent.  Since a landlord does not want the percentage rent generated by the premises diluted by sales originating in one of the tenant’s future locations, a lease will often prohibit a tenant from operating a competing store within a certain radius measured from the location of the premises.  Radius restrictions are common in leases for properties that generate income from sales to customers, such as restaurant premises (particularly fast food), retail stores and hotels.
In negotiating a radius restriction, a landlord and tenant will first need to agree on the physical boundary of the restriction.  Often, this is done by creating a circular exclusionary zone around the premises with a set radius from a specific point.  It can also be done by defining a boundary using specific streets and identifying specific shopping centers, shops or popular sites.  An exclusion zone of an entire city may even be appropriate in some circumstances.  Ultimately, a landlord will want to ensure that the radius is large enough to protect against a tenant opening a new location so close that it cannibalizes sales from the premises.  A tenant, on the other hand, will want to ensure the radius is not so large that it interferes with future expansion—particularly at promising sites.
Second, a landlord and tenant will need to determine to whom the radius restriction applies.  A tenant will want to limit the restriction to businesses operated by the tenant using the same trade name or offering the same product.  However, a landlord will be uncomfortable with such a narrow scope, since it would allow the tenant to open a competing store within the radius under a different name but the same product.  A landlord will want to broaden the restriction to apply to any of the tenant’s affiliates, including its owners and franchisees.  But a tenant should be careful to ensure that the definition of “affiliate” is not so broad that it precludes other products operated by the tenant or any of the tenant’s owners or investors.
Third, a landlord and tenant will need to agree on what remedies will apply if the tenant breaches the radius restriction.  Along with injunctive relief, a landlord may want to require the tenant to pay a set increase in base rent as liquidated damages.  Another remedy would be to include the gross sales (or a portion of the gross sales) from a violating store into the calculation of percentage rent of the premises.  The tenant must recognize, however, that the sales used to calculate the amount of percentage rent for the premises would not reduce the amount of gross sales of the store that violates the restriction.
While radius restrictions can appear fairly straight-forward, they may not have their intended effect unless they are carefully crafted.  As such, both landlords and tenants can benefit by engaging experienced legal counsel to assist with lease negotiations.


Bruce B. May is Chair of the Jennings, Strouss & Salmon Real Estate practice.  He has devoted his entire career to all aspects of the law and practice of real estate and commercial transactions throughout Arizona. Mr. May is named as preeminent in his field in both The Best Lawyers in America®  and Southwest Super Lawyers, each since its inception. In 1991 he was elected to membership in The American College of Real Estate Lawyers in honor of his statewide and national accomplishments. Mr. May is also a member of the Georgetown Advanced Commercial Leasing Institute in recognition of his expertise in commercial leasing and keeps current with his corporate clients as a member of the International Association of Attorneys and Executives in Corporate Real Estate.
Christenson Blog Photo
Alan P. Christenson focuses his practice on all aspects of real estate law, including restaurant, retail and commercial leasing; acquisition, sale and development; and financing.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Two Jennings Strouss Attorneys Named 2016 Best Lawyers® “Lawyers of the Year” in Phoenix


Jay A. Fradkin Recognized for Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants and Richard Lieberman Recognized for Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) 




PHOENIX, Ariz. (August 19, 2015) – Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., a leading Phoenix-based law firm, is pleased to announce that Jay A. Fradkin has been selected as the Best Lawyers’ 2016 Phoenix “Lawyer of the Year” for Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants and Richard Lieberman has been selected as the Best Lawyers’ 2016 Phoenix “Lawyer of the Year” for Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships).

Only a single lawyer in each practice area and designated metropolitan area is honored as the “Lawyer of the Year,” making these accolades particularly significant. These lawyers are selected based on particularly impressive voting averages received during the peer-review assessments. Receiving this designation reflects the high level of respect a lawyer has earned among other leading lawyers in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity.

Jay A. Fradkin is Chair of the firm's Healthcare Litigation department. He is a litigator with extensive trial experience in the areas of medical and professional malpractice defense, products liability, personal injury defense, and insurance defense. He focuses his practice on the defense of physicians, hospitals and other medical professionals in medical malpractice cases. His clients include medical malpractice insurance carriers, including the largest medical liability insurer in Arizona, as well as several self-insured hospitals and medical centers across the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Fradkin also represents physicians and other professionals before various licensing boards in disciplinary matters.

Fradkin has more than 30 years of experience conducting significant personal injury and wrongful death trials for both plaintiffs and defendants. He is a Certified Specialist in Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation by the State Bar of Arizona's Board of Legal Specialization.

In addition to the Lawyer of the Year award for Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants, Fradkin is listed in the 2016 Best Lawyers in America in the following practice areas: Health Care Law; Litigation – Health Care; and Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants.

“It is a privilege to be selected as the 2016 Phoenix ‘Lawyer of the Year’ for Medical Malpractice Defense by Best Lawyers and my peers. Given the number of quality lawyers who practice in the area of health care defense litigation in Arizona, it is an especially pleasant surprise to receive this honor,” said Fradkin. “At Jennings Strouss, our health care litigation practice includes talented lawyers, nurse consultants, and legal assistants. I am fortunate to lead such a dedicated team and attribute much of my success to their hard work and support.”

Richard Lieberman is Chair of the firm's Corporate, Securities and Finance department. He has extensive experience in a broad range of business law issues, including mergers and acquisitions, securities, corporate governance, finance and banking, employment, executive compensation, bankruptcy and corporate restructuring, dispute resolution and legislation.

He has served as in-house general counsel and outside counsel to a variety of companies, ranging in size from start-ups to Fortune 500 companies. Lieberman has counseled boards and senior management on issues pertinent to growing companies, as well as those experiencing crisis situations. This diverse experience enables him to counsel clients on corporate governance issues in a wide variety of situations. Lieberman is also a Certified Insolvency and Restructuring Advisor, awarded by the Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors.

Lieberman is one of only three attorneys in the Phoenix Metropolitan area to be listed in ten or more categories in the 2016 Best Lawyers in America. In addition to the Lawyer of the Year award for Business Organizations, Lieberman appears in the following categories: Banking and Finance Law; Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law; Corporate Compliance Law; Corporate Governance Law; Corporate Law; Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law; Mergers and Acquisitions Law; Private Funds / Hedge Funds Law; and Securities / Capital Markets Law.

“I am honored to have been recognized by my peers in ten categories, including ‘Lawyer of the Year’ in Business Organizations. This recognition underscores how Jennings Strouss lawyers can provide a comprehensive analysis to the diverse and complex needs of our business clients,” said Lieberman. “In this world of global commercial transactions, transactional lawyers increasingly need to navigate a broad array of legal and regulatory issues. Having a comprehensive view in many areas has helped me assist clients in a wide variety of complex transactions.”


About Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC, has been providing legal counsel for over 70 years through its offices in Phoenix and Peoria, Arizona; and Washington, D.C. The firm's primary areas of practice include agribusiness; bankruptcy, reorganization and creditors’ rights; construction; corporate and securities; employee benefits and pensions; energy; family law and domestic relations; health care; intellectual property; labor and employment; legal ethics; litigation; professional liability defense; real estate; surety and fidelity; tax; and trust and estates. For additional information please visit www.jsslaw.com and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.

The firm’s affiliate, B3 Strategies, assists clients with lobbying and public policy strategy at the local, state, and federal levels. For more information please visit www.b3strategies.com.

~JSS~

Contact: Dawn O. Anderson | danderson@jsslaw.com| 602.495.2806

Cybersecurity Snapshot (Infographic)


According to recent surveys, cybersecurity is a number one business priority…and it should be. The following infographic demonstrates the impact that data breaches have on companies world-wide. It also outlines how JSS can help reduce a company’s exposure to a data breach, and assist should a breach occur.

http://iplawtimes.com/2015/08/cybersecurity-snapshot/

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Michael K. Kelly Elected to the Executive Council for the Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of Arizona


PHOENIX, Ariz. (August 18, 2015) – Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., a leading Phoenix-based law firm, is pleased to announce that Michael K. Kelly has been elected to the 2015-2016 Executive Council for the Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of Arizona.
 
The Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of Arizona was established in 1984 with a mission to maintain the highest ethical standards in the practice of intellectual property law, and to facilitate communication among Arizona’s patent, trademark, and copyright practitioners.
 
“Technology companies need a robust Intellectual Property community to thrive,” stated Michael Kelly, Chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group at Jennings Strouss. “The IP section provides an effective venue for Arizona practitioners to leverage that community.”
 
Kelly is Chair of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon’s Intellectual Property Practice Group. He has over twenty-seven years of experience in all areas of intellectual property, including the procurement, enforcement, and defense of patents; trademarks, copyrights, and all aspects of trade secrets and unfair competition; international dispute resolution; Internet and new media; and related mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic alliances, and IP asset acquisitions. Kelly is intimately familiar with the rules and procedures of U.S. patent and trademark prosecution, as well as the evolving protocols in Europe and Asia.
 
Mr. Kelly’s transactional and litigation intellectual property experience extends to a wide-range of areas and industries, including encryption, cybersecurity, medical imaging, software architecture, data cache and database systems, microprocessors, optics, semiconductor processing and wafer fabrication technologies, cloud computing, advanced weapons systems, medical devices, supersonic aircraft design, automotive systems, business methods, avionics, credit and financial services, mobile devices, smart phone applications, and consumer electronics.
 
About Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C.
Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., has been providing legal counsel for over 70 years through its offices in Phoenix and Peoria, Arizona; and Washington, D.C. The firm's primary areas of practice include agribusiness; bankruptcy, reorganization and creditors’ rights; construction; corporate and securities; employee benefits and pensions; energy; family law and domestic relations; health care; intellectual property; labor and employment; legal ethics; litigation; professional liability defense; real estate; surety and fidelity; tax; and trust and estates. For additional information please visit www.jsslaw.com and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.
 
The firm’s affiliate, B3 Strategies, assists clients with lobbying and public policy strategy at the local, state, and federal levels. For more information please visit www.b3strategies.com
 
~JSS~

Monday, August 17, 2015

31 Jennings Strouss Attorneys Recognized in 2016 edition of Best Lawyers in America®



PHOENIX, Ariz. (August 17, 2015) – Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC, a leading Phoenix-based law firm, is pleased to announce that 31 lawyers have been named to the 2016 Edition of Best Lawyers.

Best Lawyers has published their list for over three decades. Lawyers on the Best Lawyers in America list are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers on the basis of professional expertise, and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and in good standing.

Congratulations to the following Jennings Strouss attorneys named to the 2016 Best Lawyers in America list:

Gerald W. Alston – Arbitration; Commercial Litigation; International Arbitration – Commercial; International Trade and Finance Law; Litigation – Construction; Mediation

Thomas C. Arendt – Real Estate Law

Timothy W. Barton – Litigation – Real Estate

David Brnilovich – Real Estate Law

John R. Christian – Tax Law; Trusts and Estates

Richard K. Delo – Health Care Law; Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

John J. Egbert – Commercial Litigation; Employment Law – Management; Labor Law – Management

Lee E. Esch – Real Estate Law

Jay A. Fradkin – Health Care Law; Litigation – Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Jeffrey D. Gardner – Commercial Litigation

Joel L. Greene – Energy Law

Paul G. Johnson – Commercial Litigation

Gary G. Keltner – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation – Bankruptcy; Real Estate Law

Richard L. Lassen – Trusts and Estates

Richard Lieberman – Banking and Finance Law; Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships); Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law; Corporate Compliance Law; Corporate Governance Law; Corporate Law; Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law; Mergers and Acquisitions Law; Private Funds / Hedge Funds Law; Securities / Capital Markets Law

Jay M. Mann – Construction Law; Litigation – Construction

Bruce B. May – Real Estate Law

Gary J. Newell – Energy Law

John C. Norling – Real Estate Law

Robert J. Novak – Banking and Finance Law; Real Estate Law

Michael R. Palumbo – Arbitration; Commercial Litigation; Mediation

Russell R. Rea – Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law

J. Scott Rhodes – Administrative / Regulatory Law; Arbitration; Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law; Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Litigation – Municipal; Mediation; Municipal Law

Alan I. Robbins – Energy law

Jack N. Rudel – Corporate Law

John G. Sestak, Jr. – Administrative / Regulatory Law; Commercial Litigation; Corporate Law; Litigation – Banking and Finance; Litigation – Construction; Litigation – Labor and Employment; Litigation – Real Estate

Richard Silverman – Energy Law

Wayne A. Smith – Real Estate Law

George C. Spilsbury – Corporate Law; Public Finance Law

Bradley J. Stevens - Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation – Bankruptcy

Kenneth C. Sundlof, Jr. – Energy Law


About Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC, has been providing legal counsel for over 70 years through its offices in Phoenix and Peoria, Arizona; and Washington, D.C. The firm's primary areas of practice include agribusiness; bankruptcy, reorganization and creditors’ rights; construction; corporate and securities; employee benefits and pensions; energy; family law and domestic relations; health care; intellectual property; labor and employment; legal ethics; litigation; professional liability defense; real estate; surety and fidelity; tax; and trust and estates. For additional information please visit www.jsslaw.com and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.

The firm’s affiliate, B3 Strategies, assists clients with lobbying and public policy strategy at the local, state, and federal levels. For more information please visit www.b3strategies.com.

~JSS~

Contact: Dawn O. Anderson | danderson@jsslaw.com| 602.495.2806

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Are Electronic Signatures Legal?


By: Arati R. Thaly
Do electronic signatures have the same effect as manual signatures? With the prevalence of e-commerce, it is important to understand when it is appropriate to use or not use electronic signatures.

There are two statutes that address this question, namely the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 2000 (ESIGN) and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (UETA). Both ESIGN and the UETA establish the legality of electronic signatures, subject to certain exceptions.
 
ESIGN (Federal Level)
ESIGN created a standard across the United States for the legal recognition of electronic signatures “with respect to transactions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce” (Section 7001 ESIGN). 

ESIGN grants states the power to “modify, limit, or supersede” the provisions of Section 7001 with respect to state law if (1) a state’s version is identical to the UETA, or (2) a state implements an alternative law that sets out the procedures for use and acceptance of electronic signatures (as long as the procedures are consistent with the provisions of ESIGN and do not require or prefer the use of a specific technology in the process). If a state takes a non-UETA approach after the enactment of ESIGN, that law must make specific reference to ESIGN. 

The exceptions to the legal validity of electronic signatures under ESIGN are comparable to the exceptions under the UETA, to the extent that both statutes exempt most transactions under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and under laws governing the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trust.

In the event of any inconsistency between the exceptions under ESIGN and UETA, the ESIGN exceptions appear to prevail. However, it is advisable to comply with exceptions under both statutes, as the issue of whether there is an inconsistency may not always be clear.

UETA (State Level)
Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have adopted the UETA. The states that have not adopted the UETA are New York, Illinois and Washington.

The UETA states that a signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. The UETA applies only to transactions between parties, each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct. Incorporating an express provision in your contracts in this regard helps to clear this hurdle.

The UETA, however, does not apply to a transaction to the extent that it is governed by (i) a law regulating the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts; (ii) the UCC except for certain sections, including those on Sales and Leases; (iii) the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act; and (iv) other laws, if any, identified by a state. 

Also, under the UETA, any document that requires a notary signature may be signed electronically. However, the UETA does not eliminate any of the other requirements of notarial laws. So, for example, the notary must still be physically present in the room with the party whose signature is being notarized.

New York, Illinois and Washington
Although New York and Illinois have not adopted the UETA, they have adopted other legislation with specific provisions providing that electronic signatures are legally valid. Both New York and Illinois provide, however, that electronic signatures cannot be used for negotiable instruments and other instruments of title, where possession of the instrument is deemed to confer title. This would include items like checks, stock certificates or motor vehicle titles. Parties to a contract should be careful to refrain from using electronic signatures for negotiable instruments where parties are incorporated or residing in New York or Illinois. 

Washington has not adopted the UETA or other similar legislation. If a state does not adopt the UETA or other similar legislation, then ESIGN will apply. Therefore, ESIGN applies in Washington, and the use of electronic signatures in Washington are legally valid, subject to specified exceptions as discussed above.

Conclusion
Each state’s specific version of the UETA should be reviewed to see which particular exceptions apply (the exceptions noted above might differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction), and to see if they are consistent with the ESIGN exceptions. If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Arati R. Thaly.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon Expands Corporate, Securities & Finance Department with the Addition of Robert K. Rogers and Christopher J. Rogers



PHOENIX, Ariz. (August 6, 2015)Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., a leading Phoenix-based law firm, is pleased to announce that two new attorneys, Robert K. Rogers and Christopher J. Rogers, have joined the firm’s Phoenix office, expanding the firm’s Corporate, Securities and Finance legal services.
 
“It is with great pleasure that we welcome Bob and Chris Rogers to the Jennings Strouss family,” stated John C. Norling, Managing Attorney. “Bob and Chris are men of great character and integrity, and have established themselves as leaders in the areas of securities law and the Canadian capital markets. They will be tremendous assets to our firm and we look forward to working with them to expand the services Jennings Strouss can offer to each of our clients.”
 
Robert Rogers joined the firm as a Member. He is a long-time figure of the Arizona corporate and securities bar, and previously practiced in the corporate and securities departments of large New York and Salt Lake City law firms. Bob’s practice focuses on business and corporate law with emphasis on finance and private/public securities offerings in the United States and internationally; SEC compliance; mergers and acquisitions; high tech; licensing; venture capital; international law and technology transfer; and limited liability companies. He is also active in the community, and serves on various committees and boards for Arizona organizations. Bob is an Executive Board member of the Canada-Arizona Business Council, a non-profit established to promote and foster bilateral trade and investment.
 
Christopher Rogers joined the firm as an Associate. His practice focuses primarily in the areas of general corporate law and private securities offerings. Chris’ experience includes advising U.S. companies and investors in connection with domestic and cross-border debt and equity securities offerings; organizing and counseling start-up companies; private equity funds and special purpose entities; and general business and corporate law. Chris previously worked in Washington, D.C. as a Senior Legislative Assistant in the U.S. House of Representatives and as one of the producers of CNN’s daily political debate program, “Crossfire.”  He also served as Special Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn, NY, worked in the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau, Policy Division, and clerked in the Superior Court of New Jersey. Chris is currently General Counsel for the Canada-Arizona Business Council, and serves on the Executive Committee of the State Bar of Arizona Section on Securities Regulation.
 
"Jennings Strouss is a natural fit for us,” stated Bob Rogers. “Not only do their attorneys have exceptional skills, but they are a real pleasure to know and work with. We are excited to contribute to the breadth of services that Jennings Strouss is known for, and look forward to bringing our clients all the legal tools that growth-oriented companies need under one roof.”
 
About Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC
Jennings, Strouss &Salmon, PLC, has been providing legal counsel for over 70 years through its offices in Phoenix and Peoria, Arizona; and Washington, D.C. The firm's primary areas of practice include agribusiness; bankruptcy, reorganization and creditors’ rights; construction; corporate and securities; employee benefits and pensions; energy; family law and domestic relations; health care; intellectual property; labor and employment; legal ethics; litigation; professional liability defense; real estate; surety and fidelity; tax; and trust and estates. For additional information please visit http://www.jsslaw.com/default.aspx and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.
 
The firm’s affiliate, B3 Strategies, assists clients with lobbying and public policy strategy at the local, state, and federal levels. For more information please visit www.b3strategies.com/.
 
~JSS~

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Cybersecurity: Minimizing Risk & Responding to Breaches


Jennings Strouss attorneys Andy Chambers, Michael Kelly and Jimmie Pursell provide a high-level view of data breaches and their impact on businesses and consumers from a legal perspective.
The topics covered included:
Scope of the Problem
  • Number of instances
  • The impact on organizations by category and on public companies
  • Cost of a data breach
  • Types of data and entities at risk
  • Customer data: as it relates to businesses
  • System compromise
Regulatory Requirements and Preparing for a Breach
  • Regulatory requirements
  • Federal regulation
  • Common threads in federal privacy and security regulations
  • State laws
  • Industry standards and best practices
  • Conduct an audit / be proactive
  • Insurance
Best Practices
  • Before a data breach occurs
  • Policies and procedures relative to data security
  • After a breach
  • Other non-data breach concerns
  • Digital safeguards in a digital environment
  • Physical security
  • Cultural security
  • Best practices
  • CSIS Twenty Critical Security Controls
For more information about our cybersecurity practice, click here or contact Michael Kelly.