.

Press Releases

220 Dorsey Lawyers Recognized in 2026 Best Lawyers in America, Lawyers of the Year, and Ones to Watch

August 21, 2025

Share this page

In recognition of their legal achievements, 220 attorneys across 14 offices of the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP have been honored by their peers with inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2026 (BL Rankings LLC) and Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2026. In addition, 11 distinguished lawyers in Dorsey’s Anchorage, Denver, Des Moines, Minneapolis, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City offices have been named Best Lawyers 2026 Lawyers of the Year. Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review.

Lawyers of the Year 2026

  • Greg Collins – Litigation – Intellectual Property, Phoenix
  • Matthew Durham – Labor Law – Management, Salt Lake City
  • Skip Durocher – Native American Law, Minneapolis
  • Megan Houdeshel – Environmental Law, Salt Lake City
  • Mark Miller – Trade Secrets Law, Salt Lake City
  • Michael R. Mills – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Anchorage
  • Lee R. Osman – Patent Litigation, Patent Law, Denver
  • Neal N. Peterson – Health Care Law, Minneapolis
  • Alissa Smith – Health Care Law, Des Moines
  • Nolan S. Taylor – Corporate Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law, Salt Lake City
  • Claire H. Topp – Nonprofit/Charities Law, Minneapolis

Best Lawyers in America 2026

  • Nathan Alexander – Commercial Litigation, Franchise Law, Seattle
  • Timothy Arends – ERISA Law, Minneapolis
  • Aaron Barker – Patent Law, Salt Lake City
  • Marisa M. Bavand – Construction Law, Seattle
  • Alan W. Bell – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Salt Lake City
  • Brian Bell – Energy Regulatory Law, Natural Resources Law, Utilities Law, Minneapolis
  • Steve Bell – Commercial Litigation, Labor and Employment Litigation, Missoula
  • Rachel Benedict – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Minneapolis
  • Bryon Benevento – Personal Injury Litigation, Product Liability Litigation, Salt Lake City
  • William Berens – Trust and Estates Litigation, Trust and Estates, Minneapolis
  • Matthew S. Bethards – Patent Law, Salt Lake City
  • Theresa Bevilacqua – Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Shannon Bjorklund – Intellectual Property Law, Minneapolis
  • Andrew Brantingham – Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Fred Breedlove – Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources Law, Phoenix
  • Jason Brenkert – Corporate Law, Denver
  • Rebecca A. Brommel – Administrative/Regulatory Law, Health Care Law, Health Care Litigation, Des Moines
  • Daniel Brown – Commercial Litigation, Insurance Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Erin Bryan – Banking and Finance, Financial Services Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Adam Buck – Commercial Litigation, Salt Lake City
  • Austin T. Chambers – Privacy and Data Security, Denver
  • Monica Clark – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Minneapolis
  • Case Collard – Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Law, Denver
  • Greg Collins – Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, Phoenix
  • Gina Cornelio – Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Law, Denver
  • Katie Cownie – Health Care Law, Des Moines
  • John P. Danos – Economic Development Law, Public Finance Law, Des Moines
  • Ross C. D’Emanuele – Health Care Law, Minneapolis
  • Christopher Doerksen – Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Seattle
  • Michael Droke – Employment Law, Labor Law Management, Labor and Employment Litigation, Seattle
  • Matthew M. Durham – Employment Law, Labor and Litigation, Salt Lake City
  • Skip Durocher – Commercial Litigation, Native American Law, Minneapolis
  • Courtney Ellis – Public Finance, Missoula
  • Kimton Eng – Patent Litigation, Patent Law, Seattle
  • Nicole Engisch – Criminal Defense: White Collar, Minneapolis
  • Anthony Epps – Corporate Law, Denver
  • Josh Erekson – Corporate Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law, Salt Lake City
  • Bruce R. Ewing – Copyright Law, Intellectual Property Litigation, New York
  • Beth Forsythe – Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Brett L. Foster – Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, Trade Secrets Law, Trademark Law, Salt Lake City
  • L. Grant Foster – Copyright Law, Patent Law, Trademark Law, Salt Lake City
  • Adam Freed – Health Care Law, Des Moines
  • Isaac M. Gabriel – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Bankruptcy Litigation, Phoenix
  • Aaron Goldstein – Employment Management Law, Seattle
  • Tim Goodman – ERISA Law, Minneapolis
  • Michael P. Grace – Construction Law, Construction Litigation, Insurance Litigation, Seattle
  • Richard L. Green, Ph.D. – Patent Law, Trademark Law, Salt Lake City
  • Michael A. Grisham – Appellate, Anchorage
  • David D. Grossklaus – Public Finance Law, Des Moines
  • Robert Hale – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Dallas
  • Richard Hall – Mining Law, Boise
  • Jennifer L. Hanson – Public Finance Law, Minneapolis
  • Stephen C. Hardesty – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Boise
  • Peter L. Harris – Banking and Finance Law, Minneapolis
  • Gabriel M. Hartsell – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Bankruptcy Litigation, Phoenix
  • Bridget Hayden – Agriculture Law, Minneapolis
  • Stuart R. Hemphill – Intellectual Property Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Robert Hensley – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Denver
  • Dana M. Herberholz – Patent Litigation, Boise
  • Cam Hoang – Corporate Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law, Minneapolis
  • Andrew Holly – ERISA Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Nathan E. Honson – Tax Law, Minneapolis
  • Megan Houdeshel – Environmental Law, Environmental Litigation, Salt Lake City
  • Walter Q. Impert – Trusts and Estates, Seattle
  • Norman James – Energy Law, Environmental Litigation, Natural Resources Law, Water Law, Phoenix
  • W. Scott Jenkins Jr. – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Commercial Litigation, Phoenix
  • William A. Jonason – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Minneapolis
  • Kerith Kanaber – Patent Law, Denver
  • Mark R. Kaster – Administrative / Regulatory Law, Minneapolis
  • Troy Keller – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Salt Lake City
  • J. Michael Keyes – Advertising Law, Commercial Litigation, Copyright Law, Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patent Law, Trademark Law, Seattle
  • Jocelyn Knoll – Construction Law, Construction Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Robert Kort – Commercial Litigation, Health Care Law, Phoenix
  • Charlene Krogh – Copyright Law, Trademark Law, Denver
  • Cristina Kuhn – Municipal Law, Des Moines
  • Catherine Parrish Lake – Trademark Law, Salt Lake City
  • Peter M. Lancaster – Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, Minneapolis
  • James Langdon – Commercial Litigation, Banking and Finance Litigation, Securities Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Shawn Larsen-Bright – Banking and Finance Litigation, Seattle
  • Jake Larson – Commercial Litigation, Banking and Finance Litigation, Seattle
  • Laura M. Lestrade – Employment Law, New York
  • Jay R. Lindgren – Land Use and Zoning Law, Public Finance Law, Minneapolis
  • Michael A. Lindsay – Commercial Litigation, Antitrust Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Bridget A. Logstrom Koci – Trusts and Estates Litigation, Trusts and Estates, Minneapolis
  • Jay J. Madrid – Commercial Litigation, International Arbitration, Mediation, Dallas
  • Edward B. Magarian – Antitrust Litigation, Minneapolis
  • John Marsalek – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Minneapolis
  • Milo Marsden – Bet the Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, Salt Lake City
  • John Marti – Criminal Defense: White Collar, Minneapolis
  • Chris Martinez – Commercial Litigation, Salt Lake City
  • David Marx – Corporate Law, Salt Lake City
  • Jason B. McCammon – Patent Law, Salt Lake City
  • Dawn Meidinger – Energy Law, Environmental Law, Mining Law, Natural Resources Law, Phoenix
  • David Meyer – Real Estate Law, Minneapolis
  • Ryan E. Mick – Employment Law, Labor and Employment Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Mark A. Miller – Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patent Law, Trade Secrets Law, Trademark Law, Salt Lake City
  • Sonny Miller – Trusts and Estates, Minneapolis
  • William J. Miller – Commercial Litigation, Labor and Employment Litigation, Des Moines
  • Michael R. Mills – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Anchorage
  • Marcus A. Mollison – Real Estate Law, Minneapolis
  • Peter Nelson – Banking and Finance Law, Minneapolis
  • Steven C. Nelson – Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Minneapolis
  • Barry Newman – Trusts and Estates, Minneapolis
  • Jordan Olsen – Patent Law, Salt Lake City
  • Robert J. Olson – Construction Law, Real Estate Law, Minneapolis
  • Lee R. Osman – Intellectual Property Law, Patent Litigation, Patent Law, Technology Law, Denver
  • Betsy Sanders Parker – Banking and Finance Law, Minneapolis
  • Wells Parker – Energy Regulatory Law, Environmental Law, Mining Law, Salt Lake City
  • Bonnie Paskvan – Corporate Law, Anchorage
  • Katina M. Peterson – Tax Law, Minneapolis
  • Neal N. Peterson – Health Care Law, Minneapolis
  • Michael Pignato – Banking and Finance Law, Native American Law, Minneapolis
  • Bryan G. Pratt – Patent Law, Salt Lake City
  • F. Matthew Ralph – Commercial Litigation, Antitrust Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Melissa Raphan – Employment Law, Labor and Employment Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Jay Riffkin – Trusts and Estates, Seattle
  • Robert A. Rosenbaum – Corporate Governance Law, Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Minneapolis
  • Ronald Rosener – Banking and Finance Law, Dallas
  • Ryan T. Rosensteel – Real Estate Law, Phoenix
  • C.W. Ross – Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions Law, Phoenix
  • Eric A. Ruzicka – Construction Law, Construction Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Patricia A. Scallon – Public Finance Law, Des Moines
  • Rhona Schmidt – Intellectual Property Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Eric Lopez Schnabel – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Wilmington
  • Kirk Schuler – Commercial Litigation, Des Moines
  • Dan Semmens – Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Public Finance Law, Missoula
  • Eric R. Sherman – Commercial Litigation, Banking and Finance Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Richard H. Silberberg – Arbitration, Mediation, New York
  • Zev Simpser – Energy Regulatory Law, Utilities Law, Minneapolis
  • Alissa Smith – Health Care Law, Des Moines
  • Layne T. Smith – Corporate Law, Salt Lake City
  • Jaime Stilson – Antitrust Litigation, Minneapolis
  • William R. Stoeri – Medical Malpractice Law, Minneapolis
  • Andrew Stone – Criminal Defense: White Collar, Phoenix
  • Mary J. Streitz – Native American Law, Tax Law, Minneapolis
  • Gregory S. Tamkin – Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, Denver
  • Nick Taylor – Corporate Law, Boise
  • Nolan S. Taylor – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law, Venture Capital Law, Salt Lake City
  • Benjamin A. Thinnes – Commercial Finance Law, Real Estate Law, Phoenix
  • Paul G. Thompson – Corporate Law, Denver
  • Michele J. Thurnblom – Land Use and Zoning Law, Real Estate Law, Minneapolis
  • Thomas W. Tinkham – Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Claire H. Topp – Health Care Law, Nonprofit/Charities Law, Minneapolis
  • Alyson Van Dyk – Real Estate Law, Minneapolis
  • Michael Voves – ERISA Law, Minneapolis
  • Steven T. Waterman – Bankruptcy Litigation, Salt Lake City
  • Andrea Wechter – Commercial Litigation, Denver
  • Steven J. Wells – Commercial Litigation, Franchise Law, Minneapolis
  • Jamie G. Whatley – Banking and Finance Law, Dallas
  • Bradley F. Williams – Real Estate Law, Minneapolis
  • Gabrielle M. Wirth – Employment Law Management, Labor Law Management, Labor and Employment Litigation, Southern California
  • Brad E. Wright – Real Estate Law, Phoenix
  • Sarah Zach – Real Estate Law, Minneapolis
  • RJ Zayed – Criminal Defense: White Collar, Intellectual Property Litigation, Minneapolis

Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2026

  • Briana Al Taqatqa – Labor and Employment Law, Minneapolis
  • Kerry Lee Andken – Patent Law, Seattle
  • Leilani Argersinger – Corporate Law, Denver
  • Jeremy Barton – Intellectual Property, Patent and Technology Law, Salt Lake City
  • Amy Bjork – Municipal Law, Public Finance Law, Des Moines
  • Ian Blodger – Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Krista Bolles – Commercial Litigation, New York
  • Rachel Burkhart – Land Use and Zoning Law, Litigation – Real Estate, Real Estate Law, Denver
  • Niels A. Bybee – Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Salt Lake City
  • Nathan Canova – Public Finance Law, Salt Lake City
  • Anabel Cassady – Labor and Employment Law, Minneapolis
  • Erica Haggerty Chen – Labor and Employment Law – Management and Litigation, Southern California  
  • Jennifer R. Colich – Trusts and Estates, Minneapolis
  • Manuel A. Cornell – Appellate, Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis 
  • Brandon Drea – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Phoenix 
  • J.B. Evans – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Boise
  • Kendall Fisher – Trusts and Estates, Seattle
  • Michael Galen – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Phoenix
  • Justin Gilleland – Intellectual Property Law, Denver
  • Brett Gilmore – Appellate, Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation, Labor and Employment Litigation, Phoenix 
  • Laura Goforth – Banking and Finance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation – Bankruptcy, Project Finance Law, Minneapolis
  • Roxanna V. Gonzalez – Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Elliot Hales – Intellectual Property Law, Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, Salt Lake City
  • Emily C. Hammond – Banking and Finance Law, Public Finance, Des Moines
  • Morgan Helme – Corporate Governance and Compliance Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Minneapolis
  • Kiley Henry – Trusts and Estates, Minneapolis
  • Alison Hill – Intellectual Property Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Jack Huerter – Litigation Securities, Minneapolis
  • Caitlin Hull – Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Julie P. Ibrahim – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Phoenix
  • Alan Iverson – Civil Rights Law, ERISA Law, Minneapolis
  • Anthony J. Jones – Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law, Seattle
  • Melonie Jordan – Labor and Employment Law – Management, Labor and Employment Litigation, Privacy and Data Security Law, Southern California
  • Joshua Kornfield – Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Juliana Lauria – Commercial Litigation, Phoenix 
  • Jessica Leano – Commercial Litigation, Southern California 
  • Robert J.M. Lee – Litigation – Intellectual Property, Seattle
  • Julia Lisi – Intellectual Property Law, Minneapolis
  • Marina Lyons – Labor and Employment Law – Management, Seattle 
  • John Myers – Corporate Law, Dallas 
  • Josh Oie – Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Joshua Pleitz – Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Dallas
  • David Racine – Commercial Litigation, Health Care Law, Antitrust Law, Minneapolis
  • Sativa Rasmussen – Corporate Governance and Compliance Law, Corporate Law, Seattle
  • Eric R. Reeves – Securities/Capital Markets Law, Corporate Law, Dallas
  • Megan Renslow – Labor and Employment Management, Labor and Employment Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Ashley Repp – Commercial Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Lindsey Sadler – Intellectual Property Law, Denver
  • Mara Sanders – Health Care Law, Minneapolis
  • Nathan Searcy – Patent Law, Salt Lake City
  • J. Mike Sevilla – Immigration Law, Minneapolis
  • Jesse Sheedy – Tax Law, Trusts and Estates, Minneapolis
  • Michael Sly – Banking and Finance Law, Minneapolis
  • Rachel Stoian – Banking and Finance Law, Palo Alto 
  • Jack Sullivan – Labor and Employment Law, Management, Litigation, Minneapolis
  • Vanessa Szalapski – Health Care Law, Minneapolis
  • Mathew Teagarden – Trusts and Estates, Seattle
  • Hannah Russell Torres – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Phoenix
  • Grant Turpin – Public Finance Law, Minneapolis
  • Joice Varughese – Banking and Finance Law, Dallas
  • Heath Waddingham – Administrative/Regulatory Law, Salt Lake City
  • Ashley M. Walker – Commercial Litigation, Salt Lake City
  • Andrew Wasden – Patent Law, Technology Law, Salt Lake City
  • Stephen Weingold – Appellate Practice, Commercial Litigation, Denver
  • Tom Whitten – Real Estate Law, Phoenix
  • Ting Zhou – Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, New York 

Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2026 recognizes extraordinary lawyers who have been in private practice for less than 10 years in the United States and is based entirely on peer review.

Firm Highlights

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

News

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.

News

Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000

Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce its recognition in the inaugural edition of the Copyright 1000: The World’s Leading Copyright Professionals, published by IAM and World Trademark Review (WTR). Nine Dorsey attorneys were individually recognized, and the Firm’s Denver, Minneapolis, New York, Salt Lake City, and Seattle offices were recognized in the firm rankings. The following Dorsey attorneys were recognized in the inaugural guide: Lindsey Sadler Gregory Tamkin Charlene Krogh Evan Everist Jeffrey Cadwell Fara Sunderji Bruce Ewing Catherine Parrish Lake J. Michael Keyes The Copyright 1000 is the first dedicated ranking focused solely on the world’s leading copyright practitioners. The guide identifies leading copyright firms and practitioners across key jurisdictions worldwide. Dorsey’s intellectual property attorneys advise clients on a wide range of copyright matters, including protection, enforcement, licensing, litigation, transactions, and issues involving emerging technologies and digital content. The inaugural Copyright 1000 rankings are published by IAM and WTR.

The image shows classic stone columns and steps, which often represent government buildings, courthouses, or legal institutions.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 14, 2026

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

News

Dorsey’s London Corporate Practice and Partners Earn Chambers UK 2027 Rankings