.

Patrick F. Courtemanche

Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer

courtemanche.pat@dorsey.com

Pat works with Dorsey colleagues and the clients they serve to help develop relationships that lead to business success for all involved.

A former practicing attorney, Pat originally joined Dorsey's Corporate Department as an associate in 1987 and became a partner in 1995. He left the firm in 2000 to work as a public relations consultant and returned to Dorsey in 2009 to join the firm's Marketing & Business Development group. His clients, both in law and public relations, included publicly-held companies, privately-held companies, non-profits and individuals. In his role as the Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer, Pat’s healthy balance of marketing experience and frontline legal experience informs a problem-solving approach to clients’ needs.

Education

  • University of Michigan Law School (J.D., 1987)
  • University of Minnesota (B.S., Business, 1984)

Bar Admissions

  • Minnesota

Professional Affiliations

  • Communications and Outreach Committee, The Advocates for Human Rights, 2021 – present
  • Board of Directors, Free Arts Minnesota, 2011 – 2016
  • Board of Directors, Twins Cities Jazz Festival, 2005 – 2014

Select Presentations

  • “The Art of Making Connections,” Leadership Foundations Program, University of Minnesota Law School, January 2014

Insights

View all

Media Mentions

Marketing Post-Covid: Pat Courtemanche, Chief Marketing Officer at Dorsey & Whitney LLP

October 14, 2020

Articles

Coronavirus Resource Center

COVID-19 2020-2022

Dorsey & Whitney has closely tracked the business and legal implications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since its earliest days. With offices in Beijing, Hong Kong and Shanghai, the Firm has been advising clients since the very beginning of the pandemic. As the adverse effects continue to impact our clients around the globe, Dorsey has formed multi-disciplinary legal response teams to address the urgent and complex issues that have arisen. We are connecting dots that span healthcare issues, finance, stimulus programs, distressed assets, employment and immigration, supply chain and other contractual matters, insurance matters, government relations, dispute resolution and every other aspect of problem solving that is crucial in a time of crisis. This Coronavirus Resource Center is regularly updated. For more information, we encourage you to get in touch with the Dorsey contacts listed below: Legal Response Teams Governmental Relief & Incentives Team Dispute Anticipation and Readiness Team  Distressed Assets Team  Stimulus Acts For resources (including Updates and Webinar playbacks) relating to stimulus programs, please visit our Stimulus Acts page here. This includes information on the CARES Act, SBA, Main Street Credit, state programs and other governmental stimulus topics. Contracts - Force Majeure, Non-Performance, etc. 1/15/21 eUpdate: UK Supreme Court decides important judgment on Business Interruption Insurance 9/16/20 eUpdate: UK FCA's Business Interruption Insurance Test Case Decided by High Court 7/13/20 eUpdate: COVID-19: UK Insolvency and Restructuring 7/2/20 eUpdate: UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 Update 5/29/20 eUpdate: UK Business Interruption Policies and COVID-19 5/15/20 eUpdate: Enforcing Contractual Obligations – What To Do If Business Debts Are Unpaid: A Quick Guide 5/7/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 Pandemic – What Should I Do if My Counterparty to an Important Contract is Applying Pressure to Change Our Agreement? 4/24/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 Pandemic – What Should I Do if a Transaction that I Have Been Negotiating Suddenly Collapses? 4/8/20 eUpdate: High Court Refuses to Adjourn Trial Because the Recent COVID-19 Legislation Indicates that Hearings Should Proceed Using Remote Technology 4/6/20 eUpdate: What Should I Do if Government Lockdowns or Supply Shortages Mean that I Can No Longer Supply a Client with Goods or Services Under a Contract? 3/27/20 eUpdate: Contractual Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic – Can it Excuse a Business from Performance of Contractual Obligations Under Contracts Governed by English Law? 3/12/20 eUpdate: Ten Tips for Safeguarding Against Contract Performance Risks Related to COVID-19 3/10/20 eUpdate: Coronavirus and Contractual Performance Disputes—Does a Pandemic Excuse Performance of Contractual Obligations? 3/6/20 Webinar: “Coronavirus and Contract Performance” led by Dan Brown and Shevon Rockett 3/4/20 eUpdate: Contract force majeure clauses and other steps the construction industry should be aware of with respect to the coronavirus from our Construction and Design group Employment and Remote Workforce / Immigration 3/29/22 Webinar: L&E Briefing: COVID, Long Haul COVID and Reasonable Accommodations 2/1/22 Article: Employee Covid-19 Tests—When Must Employers Pay? 1/20/22 eUpdate: Ninth Circuit Asks Montana Supreme Court for Guidance: Is an Employer Defending Itself in a Wrongful Discharge Lawsuit Limited to the Reasons for Termination Given in a Discharge Letter? 12/20/21 eUpdate: Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s Vaccine-or-Test Rule, Putting ETS Requirements Back in Effect 11/18/21 eUpdate: What’s Next for OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard? 11/8/21 eUpdate: OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination or Weekly Testing Mandate: Legal Status and Employer Next Steps 11/1/21 eUpdate: Iowa Passes New Law Related to COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates by Employers and Unemployment Insurance 10/28/21 eUpdate: Additional EEOC Guidance for Employers Processing Religious Exemption Requests in Workplace COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates 9/13/21 eUpdate: Biden Administration Announces Broad Employer-Based Vaccination Requirements 8/19/21 eUpdate: Masks are Back for Washingtonians. Will Other States Follow? 6/23/21 Blog Post: Update Regarding Publication of OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard 6/10/21 eUpdate: OSHA Issues COVID-19 Workplace Safety Rule for Healthcare Employers 6/1/21 eUpdate: No Vaccine Passports in Iowa 5/24/21 eUpdate: The Great Reopening: Considerations for Employers as Employees Begin to Travel and Return to the Office 5/17/21 eUpdate: Saying Goodbye to Mask Mandates – Practical Tips for Employers 5/14/21 eUpdate: Vaccine Status is a Protected Trait in Montana 5/6/21 eUpdate: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz Issues Executive Order Loosening COVID-19 Restrictions Tomorrow (May 7), Revoking Nearly All Restrictions On May 28, and Ending the Mask Mandate (Including Indoors) No Later Than July 1 3/12/21 eUpdate: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz Issues Executive Order Paving the Way for Employees to Return to the Office 2/25/21 Blog Post: Managing Workplace Safety in the COVID-19 Era 2/22/21 eUpdate: Companies Consider Transparent Face Masks as an ADA Accommodation During Pandemic 1/27/21 eUpdate: President Biden Issues New COVID-19 Travel Ban 1/6/21 eUpdate: California Qualified Employers May Receive Tax Credit Boost for New Hires 1/4/21 eUpdate: Congress Extends the FFCRA’s Payroll-Tax Credit for Employers (but not the Paid-Leave Obligation!) 12/23/20 eUpdate: Mandating COVID-19 Vaccinations in the Workplace: Practical Considerations for Employers 12/2/20 eUpdate: Latest Minnesota Emergency Executive Order Closes Some Businesses and Extends Work-From-Home Requirements 11/24/20 eUpdate: Seven Takeaways From Cal/OSHA’s New Emergency COVID-19 Regulation 11/4/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 UK Employment Update: Emergency Lockdown Legislation 11/2/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 UK Employment Update: New Lockdown, Furlough Extended, JSS delayed 10/16/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 UK Employment Update: Furlough Scheme Ending, Job Support Scheme Extended 10/7/20 Webinar: Understanding Liability in the Time of COVID-19 9/25/20 eUpdate: New York Employers Get Ready for Statewide Paid Sick Leave 9/24/20 eUpdate: UK Government Announces Job Support Scheme 9/14/20 eUpdate: Five FAQs: Paid Sick Leave for COVID-19-Qualifying Reasons Available to All California Employees Under New Law 8/12/20 eUpdate: Federal Court Invalidates Portions of the DOL’s FFCRA Rule 7/21/20 Blog Post: As States Reopen, Can Employees Refuse to Return to Work Based on Fear of Exposure to COVID-19? 7/9/20 eUpdate: UK Government Announces Job Retention Bonus, Kickstart Scheme and More 6/23/20 eUpdate: White House Announces New Immigration Restrictions for H, J, and L Visas 5/29/20 eUpdate: UK Update - SSP Extended and Changes to Furlough Scheme 5/18/20 eUpdate: UK COVID-19 Update: Government Guidance on Holiday Entitlement and Pay Released 5/14/20 eUpdate: DHS Announces New COVID Flexibility for H-2B Nonagricultural Worker Program 5/13/20 eUpdate: UK COVID-19 Update: Furlough Scheme Extended and Guidance for Workplace Safety Released 5/5/20 eUpdate: UK Government Assistance for Businesses in the COVID-19 Crisis 4/27/20 Webinar: "Phoenix Rising: Managing Your Company’s Recovery Without Getting Sued" led by Mike Droke and Aaron Goldstein 4/24/20 eUpdate: UK – Furlough Scheme Updates 4/24/20 eUpdate: Immigration Moratorium? Presidential Proclamation On Immigration Not As Sweeping As Earlier Tweet Suggests 4/22/20 Webinar: "Labor and Employment 2020 Symposium" led by Ryan Mick, Melissa Raphan, Drew James, Molly Sigel, Jillian Kornblatt, Jack Sullivan, Marilyn Clark, JoLynn Markison, Rebecca Bernhard, Bob Webber, Ieva Aubin, Candelario Arredondo, Tim Goodman, Melinda Maher, and Mary Streitz 4/13/20 Blog Post: COVID-19 Retaliation Claims—A 2020 Trend in Employment Litigation? 4/10/20 eUpdate: California Cities and Counties Issue Orders and Recommendations on Use of Face Coverings in the Workplace 4/10/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 Business Immigration Digest 4/3/20 eUpdate: DOL Temporary Rule on the FFCRA: Additional Changes and Clarifications 3/30/20 eUpdate: Department of Labor Issues New Guidance on Families First Coronavirus Response Act Definitions of “Health Care Provider” and “Emergency Responder” 3/27/20 Article: How Employers Should Respond to COVID-19 Testing Law 3/27/20 eUpdate: The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Twenty (Or So) Questions With Dorsey’s Labor and Employment Team 3/27/20 eUpdate: COVID-19: UK Government Announces Help For Self-Employed and More Details of Furlough Scheme 3/26/20 eUpdate: E-Verify Extends Timeframe for Resolving Social Security Administration TNCs due to COVID-19 3/24/20 eUpdate: Can People Still Go to Work in the UK? 3/23/20 eUpdate: Compliance in the Time of COVID-19: Government Defers I-9 Physical Inspection Requirements 3/20/20 eUpdate: UK Government To Pay Workers’ Wages To Prevent Job Losses Due to COVID-19 3/20/20 eUpdate: Effective Immediately New York Requires Sick Leave and Other Protections for Employees Affected by COVID-19 3/19/20 eUpdate: What Employers need to know now that the President has signed the Family Relief Act 3/16/20 eUpdate: What Employers Should Know About The “Families First Coronavirus Response Act” 3/16/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 - Help For UK Employers 3/9/20 eUpdate: Key Things Employers in China Should Know Regarding Reopening Amid COVID-19 (II) 3/6/20 eUpdate: Key Things Employers in China Should Know Regarding Reopening Amid COVID-19 (I) 3/4/20 Webinar: “Coronavirus and Employment Law” led by Mike Droke and Aaron Goldstein  ERISA 3/26/20 eUpdate: ERISA Plan Investment Management in a Time of Market Disruption Government Contracting 8/11/20 eUpdate: SF 2338: A Proposed Fix for "Pexa" and the Pandemic 6/16/20 eUpdate: The Convergence: Feds Level First Hybrid Healthcare- and Securities-fraud Charges Arising from COVID-19 Marketing and Sales 5/6/20 eUpdate: False Claims Act Exposure for Beneficiaries of the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Relief Fund: Mitigating Risks of Ambiguous Terms & Conditions 4/14/20 eUpdate: Looking Ahead: Enforcement Actions for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Related to COVID-19 3/26/20 eUpdate: E-Verify Extends Timeframe for Resolving Social Security Administration TNCs due to COVID-19 3/19/20 eUpdate: The Defense Production Act: The Obscure Law that Industry and Government Should be Talking About Today (and for the Foreseeable Future)  Healthcare 3/3/22 Blog Post: Covid-19 Requirements for Healthcare Employers: A Recap of Where Things Stand 1/17/22 Blog Post: U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Injunction Against CMS’ Health Care Facility Vaccine Mandate: What Does This Mean for Your Health Care Facility? 11/29/21 Blog Post: Limited Preliminary Injunction Issued for CMS Vaccine Mandate 11/18/21 eUpdate: What’s Next for OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard? 11/9/21 Blog Post: CMS’ COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate: What Health Care Providers Need to Know 11/8/21 eUpdate: OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination or Weekly Testing Mandate: Legal Status and Employer Next Steps 11/1/21 eUpdate: Iowa Passes New Law Related to COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates by Employers and Unemployment Insurance 9/28/21 Blog Post: Updates on Legal Challenges to Health Care Employers’ Voluntary COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates 9/13/21 eUpdate: Biden Administration Announces Broad Employer-Based Vaccination Requirements 9/2/21 Blog Post: OSHA Releases Updated Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace 8/18/21 Blog Post: Biden Administration Orders Long Term Care Facilities to Require COVID-19 Vaccinations To Receive Federal Funds; OSHA Issues Updated COVID-19 Recommendations For All Workplaces 7/28/21 Blog Post: Living in a Virtual World: The Post-Pandemic Future of Telehealth 6/23/21 Blog Post: Update Regarding Publication of OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard 6/10/21 eUpdate: OSHA Issues COVID-19 Workplace Safety Rule for Healthcare Employers 6/10/21 Blog Post: Considerations for Health Care Employers under Iowa’s Vaccine Passport Law and Recent CDC, CMS and EEOC Guidelines 6/7/21 Blog Post: Coronavirus Lawsuits More Than Double In 2021; Those Against Healthcare Providers Steadily Increase 12/11/20 Blog Post: Coronavirus Lawsuits Against Healthcare Providers are on the Rise 9/11/20 Blog Post: CMS Issues Interim Final Rule to Enforce COVID-19 Reporting Requirements 8/11/20 eUpdate: SF 2338: A Proposed Fix for "Pexa" and the Pandemic 6/16/20 eUpdate: The Convergence: Feds Level First Hybrid Healthcare- and Securities-fraud Charges Arising from COVID-19 Marketing and Sales 5/6/20 eUpdate: False Claims Act Exposure for Beneficiaries of the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Relief Fund: Mitigating Risks of Ambiguous Terms & Conditions 5/5/20 Blog Post: CMS Expands Emergency Declaration Blanket Waivers for Health Care Providers 5/4/20 Blog Post: CMS Provides Additional COVID-19 EMTALA Guidance for Hospitals 4/30/20 Blog Post: Emergency Cannabis Small Business Health and Safety Act 4/29/20 Blog Post: CMS Issues Explanatory Guidance on Stark Law Blanket Waivers 4/29/20 Blog Post: The “War” Between Out-of-Network Providers and Insurers Spreads Into COVID-19 Territory 4/27/20 Blog Post: The Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act: Summary of “Phase 3.5” COVID-19 Stimulus Package 4/24/20 eUpdate: The Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act 4/23/20 Article: Current COVID-19 Legislative Relief for Tax-Exempt Organizations 4/23/20 Blog Post: HHS Announces Additional Allocations of CARES Act Provider Relief Fund 4/22/20 Blog Post: Privacy of Substance Use Disorder Records and The CARES Act: Steps Toward Harmonizing Part 2 Privacy Laws with HIPAA 4/21/20 Blog Post: Untimely Dispensing Allegations Against Pharmacies Stricken in Opioid Litigation 4/13/20 Blog Post: HHS Releases Notices of $30 Billion to Healthcare Providers and Suppliers 4/7/20 Blog Post: OIG Initiatives to Ease Provider Burdens Related to COVID-19 4/6/20 Blog Post: Medicare Payment Rules Changed to Allow Broad Use of Remote Communications Technology 4/2/20 Blog Post: New CMS COVID-19 Blanket Waivers for Health Care Providers 4/2/20 Blog Post: Stark Law Blanket Waivers Related to “COVID-19 Purposes” Announced 4/1/20 Blog Post: What All Employers Should Know About Disaster Relief Funds to help with COVID-19 3/30/20 eUpdate: Department of Labor Issues New Guidance on Families First Coronavirus Response Act Definitions of “Health Care Provider” and “Emergency Responder” 3/30/20 Blog Post: Financial Relief for Medicare Participating Providers & Suppliers – A COVID-Prompted CMS Announcement 3/27/20 eUpdate: CARES Act Summary of Provisions that Support America’s Health Care System 3/27/20 Blog Post: CARES Act Summary of Provisions that Support America’s Health Care System 3/26/20 Blog Post: COVID-19 and Provider Enrollment: CMS issues FAQs About the Broad 1135 Waiver 3/26/20 Blog Post: CMS Announces Enforcement Discretion for Physician Payments Sunshine Act Reporting by Applicable Drug and Device Manufacturers 3/25/20 eUpdate: FFCRA Employment Benefit Exclusions for Health Care Providers and Emergency Responders 3/24/20 Blog Post: HIPAA and COVID-19 Updates: The Office for Civil Rights Provides Additional Guidance on Permitted Disclosures to First Responders 3/23/20 eUpdate: FCC Narrows the TCPA's Emergency Purpose Exception Amid Pandemic While Greenlighting Certain Emergency Messages by Hospitals, Health Care Providers, and Government 3/23/20 Blog Post: CMS Announces Relief for Participants in Quality Reporting Programs in Response to COVID-19 3/23/20 Blog Post: COVID-19 and EMTALA: Ongoing Requirements and New Waivers 3/23/20 Blog Post: Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic 3/23/20 Blog Post: Protecting Patients and Providers in Unprecedented Times 3/20/20 Blog Post: COVID-19 and Cross-State Clinician Licensure: Federal and State Regulations, Revisited, and What To Do About Them 3/18/20 Blog Post: Controlled Substance Prescribing Exceptions During Public Health Emergencies 3/18/20 Blog Post: Medicare Telehealth Payment Expanded to Help Address the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency HIPAA 4/22/20 Blog Post: Privacy of Substance Use Disorder Records and The CARES Act: Steps Toward Harmonizing Part 2 Privacy Laws with HIPAA 3/24/20 Blog Post: HIPAA and COVID-19 Updates: The Office for Civil Rights Provides Additional Guidance on Permitted Disclosures to First Responders 3/17/20 Blog Post: New HIPAA Waivers for Health Care Providers During the COVID-19 Emergency 3/13/20 Blog Post: Public Health Emergencies and the HIPAA Privacy Rule Privacy 9/14/20 Blog Post: Infinity Superfoods Pulls COVID-Related Social Media Content Following NAD Inquiry 8/3/20 eUpdate: Contact Tracing: Privacy Implications and Practical Considerations 7/13/20 Blog Post: Fighting COVID-19 by Accelerating the Patent and Trademark Examination Process 4/22/20 Blog Post: Privacy of Substance Use Disorder Records and The CARES Act: Steps Toward Harmonizing Part 2 Privacy Laws with HIPAA 4/20/20 Blog Post: FTC Works to Thwart Coronavirus Scams 4/10/20 eUpdate: Global Pandemic Raises Importance of Privacy and Security Compliance as California Attorney General’s Office Signals No Delay on CCPA Enforcement 4/3/20 Blog Post: Copyrights & Coronavirus: The Copyright Register Steps Into the Breach 3/24/20 Blog Post: HIPAA and COVID-19 Updates: The Office for Civil Rights Provides Additional Guidance on Permitted Disclosures to First Responders 3/23/20 eUpdate: FCC Narrows the TCPA's Emergency Purpose Exception Amid Pandemic While Greenlighting Certain Emergency Messages by Hospitals, Health Care Providers, and Government 3/13/20 Blog Post: Public Health Emergencies and the HIPAA Privacy Rule 3/12/20 eUpdate: Emergency Text Messages Can Save Lives in a Pandemic Without Running Afoul of the TCPA  Import Tariffs 4/23/20 eUpdate: Certain Tariff Deferrals Possible for U.S. Importers Whose Revenue Has Sharply Declined  Insurance Law 3/25/20 eUpdate: Insurance Coverage for Costs and Losses Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Some Considerations Intellectual Property 9/24/20 eUpdate: USPTO Defers Provisional Filing Fees For COVID-19 Technologies, But Beware Of Early Publication 5/11/20 eUpdate: USPTO to Fast Track COVID-19 Technology Patents for Small and Micro Entities, Without Additional Fees 5/1/20 Webinar: "Litigation: The Pandemic’s Next Wave" led by Theresa Bevilacqua, Dan Goldberger, Edward Magarian, Melissa Raphan, and Eric Ruzicka 4/20/20 Blog Post: FTC Works to Thwart Coronavirus Scams 4/2/20 eUpdate: USPTO and Copyright Office Extend Filing Deadlines Under Cares Act (COVID-19 Emergency) 3/27/20 Webinar: “Tips for Executing on Your IP Strategy with a Coronavirus Remote Workforce” led by Jennifer Spaith, Stefan Szpajda and Erik Nyre Litigation - Appellate 4/1/20 Article: How Appellate Practitioners Can Adapt To Pandemic Measures Litigation - Class Actions 3/24/20 Blog Post: Coronavirus Class Action Webinar—Taking Steps to Prepare for the Coronavirus Class Action 3/20/20 Webinar: “New Class Action Risks Relating to the Coronavirus” led by Kent Schmidt and Jaime Stilson 3/17/20 Blog Post: Coronavirus Class Actions—a Growing Number and Wide Variety of Cases Filed 3/11/20 Blog Post: First Coronavirus Consumer Class Action Filed on the Left Coast Non-Profits 4/23/20 Article: Current COVID-19 Legislative Relief for Tax-Exempt Organizations 3/23/20 eUpdate: UPDATE: COVID-19-Related Tax Credits and Tax Filing and Payment Relief SEC Guidance, Disclosure Issues, Annual Meetings 9/22/20 Blog Post: What Counts as a “Perk” During the COVID-19 Pandemic? 7/13/20 Blog Post: SEC Supplements COVID-19 Disclosure Guidance Ahead of Second Quarter Reports 5/21/20 eUpdate: SEC COVID Investigations 5/14/20 eUpdate: SEC Statement Encourages Municipal Securities Issuers to Provide Expanded COVID-19 Disclosures 5/14/20 Blog Post: SEC Releases FAQs Relating to Use of Form S-3 Registration Statement in Light of COVID-19 Order 5/14/20 Blog Post: SEC Adopts Temporary Amendments to Regulation Crowdfunding to Provide Relief to Smaller Companies Affected by COVID-19 4/29/20 Blog Post: SEC Clarifies the Compliance Deadline for New Mining Disclosure Rules 4/24/20 Blog Post: NASDAQ and NYSE Provide Temporary Relief from Certain Continued Listing Requirements 4/14/20 Blog Post: SEC Expects that Upcoming Earnings Reports and Related Investor and Analyst Calls Will Not be Routine, Should Be Forward-Looking 4/14/20 Blog Post: Some Thoughts on Preparing Forward-Looking Statements During the COVID-19 Pandemic 4/14/20 Blog Post: SEC Updates Guidance on Shareholder Meetings Affected by COVID-19 4/8/20 Blog Post: SEC Chairman Issues Public Statement Encouraging Public Companies to Make Prompt COVID-19 Disclosure; No Action on Certain Proposed Rule Making until May 1 3/26/20 Press Release: Dorsey Obtains Emergency Order Suspending Requirement that Alaska Corporations Hold In-Person Annual Shareholder Meetings 3/25/20 Blog Post: SEC Extends Filing Relief for Companies Affected by COVID-19 3/25/20 Blog Post: SEC Issues Guidance on COVID-19 Disclosures and Other Matters 3/24/20 Blog Post: SEC Staff Offers Relief From Manual Signature Requirements Amid Coronavirus Concerns 3/16/20 eUpdate: SEC Takes Targeted Action to Assist Funds and Advisers, Permits Virtual Board Meetings and Provides Conditional Relief from Certain Filing Procedures 3/13/20 Blog Post: Impact of COVID-19: SEC Issues Guidance on Conduct of Annual Meetings 3/10/20 Blog Post: SEC Reminds Companies of Disclosure Obligations Relating to Coronavirus 3/4/20 Blog Post: SEC Provides Filing Relief for Companies Affected by Coronavirus Travel Bans 4/10/20 eUpdate: United States Bans Exports of Certain Personal Protective Equipment with Potential for Further Export Restrictions 3/12/20 eUpdate: President Trump Announces European COVID-19 Travel Ban 2/1/20 eUpdate: U.S. Announces China Coronavirus Travel Ban Trusts & Estates 4/1/20 eUpdate: An Update for Our Friends and Clients  Construction & Real Estate 8/3/20 eUpdate: COVID-19’s Impact on Commercial Evictions and Landlord-Tenant Relations in Minnesota 4/27/20 Article: Looking Ahead: It’s Time to Plan for and Build a Robust, Sustainable U.S.-led Recovery March Article: COVID-19 Executive Orders on Non-Essential Business and Construction Exemptions by State 3/23/20 eUpdate: Are Your Business and Construction Project Essential at This Time? 3/19/20 Article: Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce: Ensuring Community and National Resilience in COVID-19 Response 3/5/20 eUpdate: What Construction Contractors and Owners Should Do, Today, to Prepare for the Possible Effects of Novel Coronavirus on their Projects Food, Beverage & Agribusiness 4/27/20 eUpdate: California’s Sweeping Price-Gouging Statute Presents Unique Risks to Manufacturers, Wholesalers, Distributors and Retailers of Food and Consumer Products 4/1/20 Webinar: "Is Your Food Company Taking the Necessary Steps In This Coronavirus Crisis?" led by Rebecca Bernhard, Mike Droke and Aaron Goldstein 3/26/20 Blog Post: Impacts of COVID-19 on Food, Beverage and Agribusiness M&A 3/25/20 Webinar: "Key M&A Trends in Food and Ag Shaping 2020" led by Mike Droke and Scott Porter 3/19/20 Article: Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce: Ensuring Community and National Resilience in COVID-19 Response  Chemical Industry 3/12/20 eUpdate: Chemical Industry Update - March 2020 Cross-Border 9/2/21 Blog Post: OSHA Releases Updated Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace 12/31/20 Blog Post: The COVID-19 Vaccine – Next Steps for Canadian Employers with U.S. Operations 7/15/20 Blog Post: Covid-19 Tax Relief Makes Winners out of Losses (for some) 4/15/20 Blog Post: OTC Markets Provides Temporary Relief to OTCQX and OTCQB Issuers Due to COVID-19 3/26/20 Webinar: “Legal Tools for Managing Cross-border Risk in a COVID-19 World” led by Peter Corne, Simon Chan and Ray Liu Specific Regions 1/20/22 eUpdate: Ninth Circuit Asks Montana Supreme Court for Guidance: Is an Employer Defending Itself in a Wrongful Discharge Lawsuit Limited to the Reasons for Termination Given in a Discharge Letter? 11/1/21 eUpdate: Iowa Passes New Law Related to COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates by Employers and Unemployment Insurance 8/19/21 eUpdate: Masks are Back for Washingtonians. Will Other States Follow? 6/1/21 eUpdate: No Vaccine Passports in Iowa 5/14/21 eUpdate: Vaccine Status is a Protected Trait in Montana 5/6/21 eUpdate: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz Issues Executive Order Loosening COVID-19 Restrictions Tomorrow (May 7), Revoking Nearly All Restrictions On May 28, and Ending the Mask Mandate (Including Indoors) No Later Than July 1 3/12/21 eUpdate: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz Issues Executive Order Paving the Way for Employees to Return to the Office 1/6/21 eUpdate: California Qualified Employers May Receive Tax Credit Boost for New Hires 12/2/20 eUpdate: Latest Minnesota Emergency Executive Order Closes Some Businesses and Extends Work-From-Home Requirements 11/12/20 eUpdate: Can I please go to work yet? 11/4/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 UK Employment Update: Emergency Lockdown Legislation 11/2/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 UK Employment Update: New Lockdown, Furlough Extended, JSS delayed 10/16/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 UK Employment Update: Furlough Scheme Ending, Job Support Scheme Extended 9/25/20 eUpdate: New York Employers Get Ready for Statewide Paid Sick Leave 9/24/20 eUpdate: UK Government Announces Job Support Scheme 8/3/20 eUpdate: COVID-19’s Impact on Commercial Evictions and Landlord-Tenant Relations in Minnesota 7/23/20 eUpdate: Minnesota Businesses Must Require Workers, Customers, and Visitors to Wear Masks 6/22/20 eUpdate: BREXIT: is a Free Trade Agreement between the UK and the EU any more likely because of COVID-19? 6/8/20 eUpdate: Minnesota Critical Sector Employers Must Develop and Implement Written COVID-19 Preparedness Plans by June 29 Under Latest Order from Gov. Walz 5/19/20 Blog Post: COVID-19 Delays EIN Process for Canadian Applicants 5/19/20 eUpdate: UK Launch of Coronavirus Future Fund 5/18/20 eUpdate: UK COVID-19 Update: Government Guidance on Holiday Entitlement and Pay Released 5/14/20 eUpdate: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz Further Loosens COVID-19 Workplace Restrictions Effective May 17 at 11:59 pm – but Requires Newly-Reopening Employers to Implement Preparedness Plans 5/13/20 eUpdate: UK COVID-19 Update: Furlough Scheme Extended and Guidance for Workplace Safety Released 5/5/20 eUpdate: UK Government Assistance for Businesses in the COVID-19 Crisis 4/27/20 eUpdate: California’s Sweeping Price-Gouging Statute Presents Unique Risks to Manufacturers, Wholesalers, Distributors and Retailers of Food and Consumer Products 4/24/20 eUpdate: UK – Furlough Scheme Updates 4/24/20 eUpdate: Governor Tim Walz April 23 Order Allowing Additional Businesses to Restart Operation 4/14/20 Blog Post: Disaster Suspension Continues-COVID-19 Corporate Issues in Alaska 4/10/20 eUpdate: California Cities and Counties Issue Orders and Recommendations on Use of Face Coverings in the Workplace 4/9/20 eUpdate: Governor Tim Walz has Extended Minnesota Stay-at-Home Order 4/6/20 eUpdate: New Social Distancing Measures in Hong Kong Amidst the COVID-19 Crisis – How are Businesses being Affected? 3/30/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 and the Corporate Trustee – Can Virtual Noteholder Meetings be Held? 3/27/20 eUpdate: COVID-19: UK Government Announces Help For Self-Employed and More Details of Furlough Scheme 3/27/20 Blog Post: Stranded Canadians Taxed in the Time of Covid-19 3/25/20 eUpdate: Minnesota Stay-at-Home Order to take effect Friday, March 27 at 11:59 pm – “Critical Sectors” may continue operating 3/25/20 eUpdate: Guidance Regarding Electronic Meetings in Iowa 3/25/20 Blog Post: Effective Collaboration with the Governor Nets Pragmatic Solution to COVID-19 Corporate Issues in Alaska 3/24/20 eUpdate: Can People Still Go to Work in the UK? 3/20/20 eUpdate: UK Government To Pay Workers’ Wages To Prevent Job Losses Due to COVID-19 3/16/20 eUpdate: COVID-19 - Help For UK Employers 3/9/20 eUpdate: Key Things Employers in China Should Know Regarding Reopening Amid COVID-19 (II) 3/6/20 eUpdate: Key Things Employers in China Should Know Regarding Reopening Amid COVID-19 (I) For more information or to be connected to an attorney with specific expertise please contact Pat Courtemanche.

Firm Highlights

News

Dorsey & Whitney Partner Michael W. Droke Releases Fourth Edition of Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide with Enhanced Insights for Today's Cooperatives

Industry-leading reference updated with practical tips and current cooperative law developments Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce the publication of the fourth edition of Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide to the Special Laws Governing Cooperatives, authored by Dorsey Partner Michael W. Droke. Drawing on more than 20 years of direct experience as outside general counsel to major agricultural and food industry cooperatives, Droke has updated this essential resource with new practical tips, real-world guidance, and insights into emerging cooperative law issues that matter to cooperative leaders and their advisors. Since its initial publication, this comprehensive guide has become the standard reference for attorneys, executives, and cooperative governance professionals navigating the unique legal landscape of cooperative organizations. The new fourth edition builds on that foundation by incorporating practical lessons learned from recent cooperative transactions, governance challenges, and regulatory developments. "I am grateful for Dorsey's continued support of this work and for the opportunity to contribute to the cooperative community," said Droke. "Over the past 20 years, I've had the privilege of serving as outside general counsel to some of the nation's most successful cooperatives. The practical insights gained from that work inform every page of this edition. I wanted to create a resource that helps cooperative leaders and their legal advisors tackle real business challenges with confidence." The Fourth Edition features: Practical tips and real-world case examples drawn from decades of cooperative practice Guidance on cooperative formation, governance, member rights, and voting structures Current analysis of antitrust and Capper-Volstead Act issues affecting modern cooperatives Insights into financing, mergers and acquisitions, and corporate restructuring for cooperatives Member relations strategies and dispute resolution approaches specific to cooperative structures About Michael W. Droke Michael W. Droke is a Partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Firmwide Co-Chair of the Food, Beverage & Agriculture practice group. He serves as outside primary counsel for numerous cooperatives, providing comprehensive legal guidance on all aspects of cooperative operations, governance, member relations, corporate restructuring, financing, and mergers and acquisitions. His representative clients include National Co+op Grocers, Darigold, the Northwest Dairy Association, Organic Family Farms Cooperative, Chelan Fruit Cooperative, and Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op. A former business executive who brings a dual perspective to his practice, Droke combines legal expertise with practical business acumen. He has served as an outside board member and general counsel for major cooperatives and maintains deep involvement in the cooperative community through regular presentations and participation in industry organizations including NCBA CLUSA, the National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives, and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. About Dorsey & Whitney's Cooperative Law Practice Dorsey & Whitney's Cooperative Law practice group is a recognized national leader in cooperative law with more than 45 years of experience serving agricultural cooperatives, rural electric cooperatives, purchasing cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, and cooperative start-ups across the nation. The practice includes 20 dedicated lawyers who advise cooperatives and other agriculture-related organizations on formation and organization, voting rights and governance, antitrust and Capper-Volstead Act compliance, tax issues, project development and finance, mergers and acquisitions, real estate, labor and employment, environmental compliance, and all other aspects of cooperative business operations. Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide to the Special Laws Governing Cooperatives, Fourth Edition, is available from major book retailers and online booksellers.

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

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.

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.

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

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.

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

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?

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

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.