FERC Refines Pipeline Cost-Allocation Policies in Order on Remand

By: Joel Greene & Andrea Sarmento

In a recent Order on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”),[1] the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) reversed its earlier decisions and determined that  the rolled-in vs. incremental rate policies  established in its 1999 Certificate Policy Statement[2] do not justify Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation’s (“Transco”) Section 4 rate proposal to allocate the costs associated with its purchases of replacement base gas from the Washington Storage Field to BNP Paribas Energy Trading GP (“Paribas”) and South Jersey Resources Group, LLC (“South Jersey”) (collectively, “Replacement Shippers”) through a new incremental storage rate.

          

The proposed incremental rate sought to recover costs incurred by Transco for purchases of base gas for the Washington Storage Field. Transco’s Historic Shippers supplied base gas to support their storage entitlements at the Washington Storage Field and have a right, pursuant to a 1975 Settlement, to purchase their respective share of the base gas at historic cost from Transco when terminating storage service from the field. During the period 2005-2006, two of Transco’s Historic Shippers permanently released their Washington Storage Field capacity rights to the Replacement Shippers and exercised their right to purchase approximately 3.4 million Dth of base gas at its historic cost. As a result, Transco had to purchase approximately 3.4 million Dth of base gas to support the top gas needs of its shippers.

             

Transco sought to recover the costs of this purchase with an incremental rate charged to the Replacement Shippers. Initially, the Commission accepted Transco’s proposed incremental rate, rejecting arguments that such rate violated cost allocation principles established in the Policy Statement. The Commission found that its Policy Statement was inapplicable because the case did not involve any construction or expansion requiring certificate authorization—only the replenishment of base gas at a preexisting facility. The Commission further rejected arguments that the incremental rate violated cost-causation principles requiring that all approved rates reflect to some degree the costs actually caused by the customer who must pay them. The Commission reasoned that the permanent capacity releases to Paribas and South Jersey were the “most immediate and proximate” cause of Transco’s need to purchase new base gas in 2005 and 2006.

             

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the Commission’s decision to accept Transco’s incremental rate as just and reasonable.^[3] The D.C. Circuit was not persuaded that the exiting Historic Shippers’ releases to the Replacement Shippers should be viewed as the most immediate and proximate cause of Transco’s need to purchase base gas; and held that the Commission failed to explain how the Historic Shippers’ continued demand did not contribute to the need for the new base gas.  

On remand, the Commission reversed its prior decisions and found that the Policy Statement analysis used to determine whether the costs of an expansion should be borne solely by the new shippers or whether existing shippers should also be allocated a share of the project costs, does provide a reasonable framework for resolving the cost allocation issue in this case. The Commission reasoned that, while Transco did not need to apply for a new certificate to purchase replacement base gas, the pipeline had made an investment to increase the capabilities of its system and the Commission had to determine whether it is reasonable to allocate the cost of the new investment to all the pipeline's customers, old and new, or allocate those costs only to the new customers.

The Commission used two factors established in the Policy Statement to determine whether a rolled-in or an incremental rate should apply: (1) whether the new investment provides specific benefits to existing shippers; and (2) whether rolling in the cost of the new investment increases rates for the existing shippers. Following a lengthy analysis, the Commission determined that it is reasonable and equitable to allocate to the remaining historic shippers the costs associated with Transco's purchase of the base gas necessary to continue to provide service to them, given that the need to purchase this base gas arises from provisions of a settlement they agreed to, and the allocation is consistent with the Policy Statement. The analysis also showed that rolling in the costs associated with Transco's additional purchases of base gas needed to serve the Replacement Shippers benefits the Historic Shippers by leading to lower rates.

---

[1]     Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 154 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2016)

[2]     Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 (1999) (“Policy Statement”), clarified, 90 FERC ¶ 61,128 (1999 Certificate Policy Statement Rehearing Order), clarified, 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000).

[3]     BNP Paribas Energy Trading GP v. FERC, 743 F.3d 264 (2014).

In a recent Order on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”),[1] the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) reversed its earlier decisions and determined that  the rolled-in vs. incremental rate policies  established in its 1999 Certificate Policy Statement[2] do not justify Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation’s (“Transco”) Section 4 rate proposal to allocate the costs associated with its purchases of replacement base gas from the Washington Storage Field to BNP Paribas Energy Trading GP (“Paribas”) and South Jersey Resources Group, LLC (“South Jersey”) (collectively, “Replacement Shippers”) through a new incremental storage rate.
The proposed incremental rate sought to recover costs incurred by Transco for purchases of base gas for the Washington Storage Field. Transco’s Historic Shippers supplied base gas to support their storage entitlements at the Washington Storage Field and have a right, pursuant to a 1975 Settlement, to purchase their respective share of the base gas at historic cost from Transco when terminating storage service from the field. During the period 2005-2006, two of Transco’s Historic Shippers permanently released their Washington Storage Field capacity rights to the Replacement Shippers and exercised their right to purchase approximately 3.4 million Dth of base gas at its historic cost. As a result, Transco had to purchase approximately 3.4 million Dth of base gas to support the top gas needs of its shippers.
Transco sought to recover the costs of this purchase with an incremental rate charged to the Replacement Shippers. Initially, the Commission accepted Transco’s proposed incremental rate, rejecting arguments that such rate violated cost allocation principles established in the Policy Statement. The Commission found that its Policy Statement was inapplicable because the case did not involve any construction or expansion requiring certificate authorization—only the replenishment of base gas at a preexisting facility. The Commission further rejected arguments that the incremental rate violated cost-causation principles requiring that all approved rates reflect to some degree the costs actually caused by the customer who must pay them. The Commission reasoned that the permanent capacity releases to Paribas and South Jersey were the “most immediate and proximate” cause of Transco’s need to purchase new base gas in 2005 and 2006.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the Commission’s decision to accept Transco’s incremental rate as just and reasonable.^[3]The D.C. Circuit was not persuaded that the exiting Historic Shippers’ releases to the Replacement Shippers should be viewed as the most immediate and proximate cause of Transco’s need to purchase base gas; and held that the Commission failed to explain how the Historic Shippers’ continued demand did not contribute to the need for the new base gas.

On remand, the Commission reversed its prior decisions and found that the Policy Statement analysis used to determine whether the costs of an expansion should be borne solely by the new shippers or whether existing shippers should also be allocated a share of the project costs, does provide a reasonable framework for resolving the cost allocation issue in this case. The Commission reasoned that, while Transco did not need to apply for a new certificate to purchase replacement base gas, the pipeline had made an investment to increase the capabilities of its system and the Commission had to determine whether it is reasonable to allocate the cost of the new investment to all the pipeline’s customers, old and new, or allocate those costs only to the new customers.

The Commission used two factors established in the Policy Statement to determine whether a rolled-in or an incremental rate should apply: (1) whether the new investment provides specific benefits to existing shippers; and (2) whether rolling in the cost of the new investment increases rates for the existing shippers. Following a lengthy analysis, the Commission determined that it is reasonable and equitable to allocate to the remaining historic shippers the costs associated with Transco’s purchase of the base gas necessary to continue to provide service to them, given that the need to purchase this base gas arises from provisions of a settlement they agreed to, and the allocation is consistent with the Policy Statement. The analysis also showed that rolling in the costs associated with Transco’s additional purchases of base gas needed to serve the Replacement Shippers benefits the Historic Shippers by leading to lower rates.

---

[1]     Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 154 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2016)

[2]     Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 (1999) (“Policy Statement”), clarified, 90 FERC ¶ 61,128 (1999 Certificate Policy Statement Rehearing Order), clarified, 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000).

[3]     BNP Paribas Energy Trading GP v. FERC, 743 F.3d 264 (2014).

- See more at: http://www.jsslaw.com/news_detail.aspx?id=464#sthash.9YlxxQzv.dpuf

In a recent Order on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”),[1] the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) reversed its earlier decisions and determined that  the rolled-in vs. incremental rate policies  established in its 1999 Certificate Policy Statement[2] do not justify Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation’s (“Transco”) Section 4 rate proposal to allocate the costs associated with its purchases of replacement base gas from the Washington Storage Field to BNP Paribas Energy Trading GP (“Paribas”) and South Jersey Resources Group, LLC (“South Jersey”) (collectively, “Replacement Shippers”) through a new incremental storage rate.
The proposed incremental rate sought to recover costs incurred by Transco for purchases of base gas for the Washington Storage Field. Transco’s Historic Shippers supplied base gas to support their storage entitlements at the Washington Storage Field and have a right, pursuant to a 1975 Settlement, to purchase their respective share of the base gas at historic cost from Transco when terminating storage service from the field. During the period 2005-2006, two of Transco’s Historic Shippers permanently released their Washington Storage Field capacity rights to the Replacement Shippers and exercised their right to purchase approximately 3.4 million Dth of base gas at its historic cost. As a result, Transco had to purchase approximately 3.4 million Dth of base gas to support the top gas needs of its shippers.
Transco sought to recover the costs of this purchase with an incremental rate charged to the Replacement Shippers. Initially, the Commission accepted Transco’s proposed incremental rate, rejecting arguments that such rate violated cost allocation principles established in the Policy Statement. The Commission found that its Policy Statement was inapplicable because the case did not involve any construction or expansion requiring certificate authorization—only the replenishment of base gas at a preexisting facility. The Commission further rejected arguments that the incremental rate violated cost-causation principles requiring that all approved rates reflect to some degree the costs actually caused by the customer who must pay them. The Commission reasoned that the permanent capacity releases to Paribas and South Jersey were the “most immediate and proximate” cause of Transco’s need to purchase new base gas in 2005 and 2006.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the Commission’s decision to accept Transco’s incremental rate as just and reasonable.^[3]The D.C. Circuit was not persuaded that the exiting Historic Shippers’ releases to the Replacement Shippers should be viewed as the most immediate and proximate cause of Transco’s need to purchase base gas; and held that the Commission failed to explain how the Historic Shippers’ continued demand did not contribute to the need for the new base gas.

On remand, the Commission reversed its prior decisions and found that the Policy Statement analysis used to determine whether the costs of an expansion should be borne solely by the new shippers or whether existing shippers should also be allocated a share of the project costs, does provide a reasonable framework for resolving the cost allocation issue in this case. The Commission reasoned that, while Transco did not need to apply for a new certificate to purchase replacement base gas, the pipeline had made an investment to increase the capabilities of its system and the Commission had to determine whether it is reasonable to allocate the cost of the new investment to all the pipeline’s customers, old and new, or allocate those costs only to the new customers.

The Commission used two factors established in the Policy Statement to determine whether a rolled-in or an incremental rate should apply: (1) whether the new investment provides specific benefits to existing shippers; and (2) whether rolling in the cost of the new investment increases rates for the existing shippers. Following a lengthy analysis, the Commission determined that it is reasonable and equitable to allocate to the remaining historic shippers the costs associated with Transco’s purchase of the base gas necessary to continue to provide service to them, given that the need to purchase this base gas arises from provisions of a settlement they agreed to, and the allocation is consistent with the Policy Statement. The analysis also showed that rolling in the costs associated with Transco’s additional purchases of base gas needed to serve the Replacement Shippers benefits the Historic Shippers by leading to lower rates.

---

[1]     Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, 154 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2016)

[2]     Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 (1999) (“Policy Statement”), clarified, 90 FERC ¶ 61,128 (1999 Certificate Policy Statement Rehearing Order), clarified, 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000).

[3]     BNP Paribas Energy Trading GP v. FERC, 743 F.3d 264 (2014).

- See more at: http://www.jsslaw.com/news_detail.aspx?id=464#sthash.9YlxxQzv.dpuf

Serial Plaintiff David Ritzenthaler Files Another Wave of ADA “Parking Lot” Lawsuits

By: Lindsay Leavitt

David Ritzenthaler, a disabled man, has filed more than 100 lawsuits against Arizona businesses alleging that their parking lots violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

Mr. Ritzenthaler is just getting warmed up—I understand that he plans to file thousands of ADA “parking lot lawsuits” throughout Phoenix and across Arizona. Read my earlier blog about Mr. Ritzenthaler’s lawsuits here.   

Mr. Ritzenthaler’s lawsuits do not discriminate. He has sued fast food restaurants, car washes, dental offices and commercial warehouses. The last category surprises some business owners. While most people recognize that retail businesses must comply with the ADA and provide accessibility to their patrons, very few are aware that the parking lots of commercial facilities—privately owned, nonresidential facilities such as factories, warehouses or office buildings—must also comply with the ADA. In other words, nearly every business facility in the U.S. that has a parking lot must comply with the ADA.

Most of Mr. Ritzenthaler’s lawsuits arise from three simple-to-fix violations of the ADA 2010 parking lot standards: (1) the correct number of “accessible” parking spaces, including van accessible parking spaces, (2) access aisles and pathways leading from accessible parking spaces to the facility entrance(s), and (3) signs with the international symbol for accessibility mounted in front of accessible parking spaces.

There are two types of businesses in Arizona—those that have been sued by Mr. Ritzenthaler and those that will be sued by Mr. Ritzenthaler. Both types of businesses need to consult with a knowledgeable ADA attorney to resolve (or prevent) their ADA parking lot lawsuit. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lindsay G. Leavitt is a business litigation and employment law attorney at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C. He regularly represents businesses in ADA compliance related disputes and provides advice on preventative measures.

DOL’s Wage and Hour Division Refines Joint Employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

By: Chris M. Mason

The Department of Labor (DOL) continues to make dramatic changes to what we know and understand of minimum wage and overtime requirements.  This time, in January of 2016, the DOL’s Wage & Hour Division (WHD) issued an Administrator’s Interpretation (AI), AI No. 2016-1, providing guidance on the subject of joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA).  The guidance in this AI signals potentially dramatic employer risks.

Today’s evolving workforce presents a plethora of staffing options not as routinely used in the past.  Third-party staffing companies, management companies, professional employer organizations, and independent contractors all present a variety of staffing options for contemporary workplaces.  Companies on both ends of this arrangement – those that lend and those that borrow workers – may be deemed joint employers, as this signaled by the WHD’s recent AI.

According to WHD AI No. 2016-1, these relationships will be reviewed for both horizontal and vertical joint employment.  Horizontal joint employment exists when two or more businesses that are associated with, or related to each other, both separately employ the same individual.  This might be seen, for instance, when two separate restaurants with common ownership employ the same waiter on different days of the week.  Conversely, an employee who works directly for one employer but who is also economically dependent on another organization working in collaboration with the employer, might find himself or herself in a vertical joint employment relationship.  For instance, an employee hired by a construction subcontractor may be considered in certain circumstances to be a joint employee of the general contractor on the project.

AI No. 2016-1 provides some guiding questions for concerned enterprises, but also foreshadows the demanding expectations we are likely to see from the WHD when it comes to joint employment evaluations and determinations:

·         who owns the potential joint employers (i.e., i.e., does one employer own part or all of the other or do they have any common owners);

·         do the potential joint employers have any overlapping officers, directors, executives, or managers;

·         do the potential joint employers have control over operations (e.g. hiring, firing, payroll, advertising, overhead costs);

·         are the potential joint employers’ operations inter-mingled (for example, is there one administrative operation for both employers, or does the same person schedule and pay the employees regardless of which employer they work for);

·         does one potential joint employer supervise the work of the other

·         do the potential joint employers share supervisory authority for the employee;

·         do the potential joint employers treat the employees as a pool of employees available to both of them; and

·         do the potential joint employers share clients or customers;

·         are there any agreements between the potential joint employers.

For those enterprises that are deemed joint employers, both may face liability for minimum wage and overtime pay requirements, and can face much greater liability under countless other labor and employment laws applicable to joint employers.

To read the complete AI, click here.  If you work through a staffing enterprise or PEO, or if you share workers directly with other operations, we encourage you to seek experienced labor and employment counsel to ensure that you are compliant with applicable law.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris M. Mason is a labor and employment law attorney at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C. He counsels employers and management on all aspects of labor and employment law, including traditional labor matters, such as collective bargaining and union organizing; restrictive covenants; employment discrimination; sexual harassment; whistleblowing; retaliation; wrongful termination; personnel policies; reductions in force; trade secrets; restrictive covenants; duty of loyalty; drug and alcohol testing; and other state and federal laws, rules, and regulations. He is also an experienced litigator, representing clients in Arizona, federal, and appellate courts, as well as before administrative agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Arizona Civil Rights Division, and the Department of Economic Security.

Whitney J. Matthis Joins Jennings, Strouss & Salmon as Marketing Manager



Whitney J. Matthis

PHOENIX, Ariz. (February 22, 2016) – Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., a leading Phoenix-based law firm, is pleased to announce the recent addition of Whitney J. Matthis as Marketing Manager in the Phoenix office.

Matthis comes to the firm from Chicago, Illinois where she was the Manager of Corporate Development for The Salem Group, a staffing and recruiting firm. Her background in marketing communications and corporate business development includes experience working in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.

“The Jennings, Strouss & Salmon brand is well established in Arizona and the other jurisdictions we serve. Whitney’s background in marketing and communications will help us capitalize on that strength and expand into other markets, particularly through the use of modern methods, such as social media,” states Dawn O. Anderson, the firm’s Director of Marketing and Communications. “Whitney’s skill set qualifies her to effectively express the legal and business issues the firm provides to current and prospective clients, while promoting our successes and the value we deliver. We are happy to welcome Whitney to our team.”

Matthis attended Columbia College Chicago and earned her Bachelor’s degree in Journalism with a minor in Public Relations. During her undergraduate studies, she played a major role in the development of the student body’s writing skills as a peer mentor and tutor. She also holds an MBA with a marketing concentration from Saint Xavier University in Chicago.

Matthis is actively involved in a number of nonprofit organizations, including the American Cancer Society, Muscular Dystrophy Association, and the American Heart Association. Her involvement in these organizations demonstrates her dedication and passion when it comes to supporting the community. Matthis also actively networks with fellow leaders in Arizona and nationwide.

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; automotive dealership law; 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~

Beware of Caller ID "Spoofing" Scam

By: John "Jack" G. Sestak, Jr.

Attorneys and their clients have joined the ranks of victims affected by a new scam that attempts to obtain personal and financial information for fraudulent use.

The process is referred to as Caller ID “spoofing." It allows callers to deliberately falsify the information transmitted to Caller ID displays, effectively disguising their real identity. Spoofing is used to trick someone into giving out personal or financial information so that it can be used in fraudulent activity or sold illegally. Most types of spoofing are prohibited by U.S. law and Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules.

“Spoofers” have disguised themselves as representatives of banks, creditors, insurance companies, and even the IRS. Now, they are masquerading as attorneys. Most recent targets are consumers who have filed, or in the process of filing, for bankruptcy. Recipients of the calls are instructed to immediately wire money to satisfy a debt that supposedly is outside the bankruptcy proceeding. Some consumers have even been threatened with arrest if they fail to wire money to pay the debt. Other scammers simply indicate that additional fees must be paid to the attorney.

Following is an outline of how the scam works:

• The client receives a phone call
• The caller ID shows the number belongs to his/her lawyer
• The client is then given a toll-free number to call
• When the client calls the toll-free number, they are given instructions on how to pay the debt

So, how are the spoofers getting this information? Most likely, they have obtained the client and attorney names/relationship through publicly available court documents.

 

If you believe you have been a victim of this scam, please contact your attorney. To learn more about this scam, or to file a complaint, visit the FCC website. You should also file a complaint with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.
                                                                                                                                     

John "Jack" G. Sestak, Jr. has practiced for 30 years in the areas of business and commercial litigation and transactions. In his litigation practice, he has represented companies of all sizes in matters such as contract disputes, securities litigation and arbitration proceedings. He has represented owners and contractors in construction disputes and lawsuits, and has represented employers in employment and employment termination matters. He has represented professionals, including law firms, accounting firms, engineers and architects, in negligence actions.

In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Sestak handles business and commercial transactions of all kinds, providing counsel and advice to a variety of clients in connection with business planning as well as dispute avoidance and resolution.

Disabled Man Sues Dozens of Arizona Businesses Over Handicapped Parking Spaces

 

By: Lindsay Leavitt

 

Arizona has quickly become ground-zero for lawsuits arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Previously, I blogged here and here about two other serial plaintiffs who had filed more than 200 lawsuits against Arizona hotels, restaurants, bars and other places of public accommodation, alleging an assortment of ADA violations. Right when those lawsuits were beginning to slow and business owners started breathing sighs of relief, another serial plaintiff has emerged.

On February 16, 2016, David Ritzenthaler filed more than 50 lawsuits against local Arizona businesses alleging that their parking lots violate the ADA. Specifically, Mr. Ritzenthaler alleges that these businesses have either an inadequate number of handicapped parking spaces, insufficient signage and/or insufficient disbursement of handicapped parking spaces.

The ADA was enacted in 1990 to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities in all areas of public life. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued new regulations under the ADA in 2010. The regulations include the new 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, outlining minimum accessibility requirements for buildings and facilities.

Both commercial facilities and public accommodations must follow the 2010 standards for new construction and alterations.

What about older facilities and parking lots? Fortunately, there is a “safe harbor” provision for features that already comply with the 1991 standards, but may not meet the new 2010 standards. These older facilities and accompanying parking lots do not need to modify their parking lots until the lot undergoes a planned alteration (re-striping, re-surfacing, etc.) after March 15, 2012. If the lot is altered after that time, it will then need to be brought into compliance with the 2010 standards, to the maximum extent feasible.

A business facing a lawsuit brought by a serial plaintiff, such as Mr. Ritzenthaler, has several options to consider. The first step, however, is to seek the assistance of an experienced ADA compliance attorney.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lindsay G. Leavitt is a business litigation and employment law attorney at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C. He regularly represents businesses in ADA compliance related disputes and provides advice on preventative measures.

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon Elects New Members

 

PHOENIX, Ariz. (January 21, 2016) – Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., a leading Phoenix-based law firm, is pleased to announce that Paul J. Valentine and Patrick F. Welch have been elected Members (Partners) of the firm, effective January 1, 2016.

“We congratulate Paul and Patrick on their recent promotion to Member,” stated John Norling, Managing Attorney at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon. “They exemplify the qualities we seek in lawyers and we look forward to working with them as they continue to grow their respective practices.”

Valentine’s practice emphasizes structuring corporate, partnership and real estate transactions, counseling medium and small businesses and tax-exempt organizations in tax matters, litigating tax cases in federal courts, and handling administrative controversies before the IRS and state agencies. In the tax controversy area, Valentine has filed federal refund suits, defended worker classification audits, and litigated the tax treatment of one of Arizona’s largest Ponzi schemes. He is also consulted regularly on the interplay between tax and bankruptcy for individual and corporate clients. Valentine earned his LL.M. in Taxation from New York University School of Law, his J.D. from American University, Washington College of Law, and a B.S. from Leeds University.

Welch focuses his practice in the areas of general and complex commercial litigation, construction litigation, fidelity and surety litigation, and cross-border litigation and transactions involving U.S. and Mexican parties. He has a wealth of overseas experience having worked for Mitsubishi International Corporation (a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corporation), Indochina Capitol Corporation, a financial services firm based in Hanoi, Vietnam, and General Electric Company (GE), a U.S. multinational conglomerate. Welch is fluent in Spanish and has extensive family and professional contacts within the Mexican, Argentine, and Colombian legal communities. Welch earned his J.D. from New England School of Law and a B.A. from Connecticut College.

 

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; automobile dealership law; 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~

Labor and Employment Attorney Chris M. Mason Joins Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C.

PHOENIX, Ariz. (January 4, 2016) – Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., a leading Phoenix-based law firm, is pleased to announce that Chris M. Mason has joined the firm as a Member of the Labor and Employment department.

“We are excited to welcome Chris to Jennings, Strouss & Salmon,” stated John Egbert, Chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment department. “Chris’s knowledge and experience will further enhance our labor and employment department, and assist the firm with continuing to provide excellent legal services to our clients.”

Mason counsels employers and management on all aspects of labor and employment law. He has fully devoted his legal career to helping employers navigate confusing, and often frustrating, labor and employment regulations. Mason is also an experienced litigator, representing clients in Arizona, federal, and appellate courts, as well as before administrative agencies. He is a frequent educational speaker and writer on topics critical to employers, and remains abreast of legislative, judicial, and administrative trends.

“I am excited to join the Jennings Strouss team, having long admired its reputation for success, commitment to the ethical practice of law, and dedication to innovation,” stated Mason. “The opportunities presented to my clients are beyond compare. There are few law firms that truly provide the value and community recognition that Jennings Strouss provides. I look forward to a long career with the firm.”

Prior to joining Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Mason worked at Polsinelli as a Shareholder in the Labor and Employment department. Mason obtained his J.D. from The University of California, Los Angeles and his B.A. from The University of California, Davis.

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; automobile dealership law, 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~