• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Brunini Law
Menu
  • About Us
      • Firm Overview
      • Diversity Matters
      • In the Community
      • Pro Bono
      • Legal Networks
      • Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC, founded over one century ago, today is one of Mississippi’s largest and most respected law firms. Our Firm’s practice is organized into three major areas of concentration: Commercial, Litigation and Regulatory law. Whether in a courtroom or the boardroom, we treat our client's business as we would our own.
    Close
  • About Us
  • People
      • Attorney Directory
      • Attorney Search
      • As one of Mississippi's oldest law firms, many of our attorneys have unmatched experience in industry sectors ranging from Energy to Telecommunications - from Litigation to Cyber Security.
    Close
  • People
  • Practices
      • Commercial
      • Litigation
      • Regulatory
      • The practice of law at Brunini is diverse, comprehensive and sophisticated. The scope of our services is coordinated across clients, industries and issues. The Brunini Firm is organized into three major areas of concentration that function optimally within the context of the law itself: Commercial, Litigation and Regulatory.
    Close
  • Practices
  • Careers
      • Recruiting
      • Summer Associates
      • Diversity
      • The Brunini Firm recruits new quality attorneys to meet its clients' increasing demands. The Firm interviews at a number of law schools and has an active summer clerkship program which is an integral part of its overall recruiting effort. We also recruit experienced attorneys with proven abilities and particular expertise to help us meet our clients' specific needs.
    Close
  • Careers
  • News
      • News
      • Blog
      • Recent Experience
      • Rankings & Awards
      • Newsletters
      • Newsletter Signup
      • Check here often for firm news, blogs, rankings and awards, and other recent developments involving Brunini and its lawyers. You can also review recent firm newsletters here and sign up to receive the newsletters by email.
    Close
  • News
  • Office
      • Jackson
      • P: 601-948-3101
        190 East Capitol Street
        The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100
        Jackson, MS 39201
    Close
  • Office
    • Jackson
    • Close

Brunini Law

Twenty- seven honored by Best Lawyers® 2017, Four attorneys named “Lawyer of the Year”

August 15, 2016 by Brunini Law

 

Twenty- seven attorneys with Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC, were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2017 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. Brunini lawyers were recognized in the following categories:

Jackson, Miss.

  • Matt Allen: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
  • Sheldon G. Alston: Litigation-Real Estate, Personal Injury Litigation-Defendants
  • P. David Andress: Real Estate Law
  • Benje Bailey- Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
  • Stephen J. Carmody:  Employment Law – Management, Labor Law – Management, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Labor and Employment,  Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants
  • R. Richard Cirilli: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
  • John M. Flynt: Administrative/Regulatory Law, Corporate Law
  • Louis G. Fuller: Litigation and Controversy – Tax, Tax Law
  • Lynne K. Green: Trusts and Estates
  • James L. Halford: Communications Law and Energy Law
  • William Trey Jones III: Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Environmental
  • R. David Kaufman: Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Securities, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants, Product Liability Litigation- Defendants
  • Samuel C. Kelly: Construction Law, Litigation – Construction
  • James A. McCullough, II: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Commercial Litigation, Litigation-Bankruptcy, Mortgage Banking Foreclosure Law
  • M. Patrick McDowell: Commercial Litigation, Mass Tort Litigation/ Class Action- Defendants, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
  • John E. Milner: Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
  • William C. Penick, IV:  Corporate Law
  • W. Ken Rogers: Corporate Law
  • Joseph A. Sclafani: Appellate Practice
  • Watts C. Ueltschey: Administrative/Regulatory Law, Energy Law, Energy Regulation Law, Mining Law, Oil and Gas Law, Real Estate Law
  • Leonard D. Van Slyke, Jr.: Litigation – First Amendment, Litigation – Trusts and Estates, Litigation and Controversy – Tax, Tax Law, Trusts and Estates
  • Joseph E. Varner, III: Tax Law, Trusts and Estates
  • John E. Wade: Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
  • Walter S. Weems: Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Tax Law
  • Ron A. Yarbrough: Construction Law and Litigation – Construction

Biloxi, Miss.

  • Leonard A. Blackwell II:  Gaming Law

Columbus, Miss.

  • J. Gordon Flowers: Commercial Litigation, Environmental Law, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

In addition to the above selections, the following attorneys were chosen as the Lawyer of the Year:

  • J. Gordon Flowers:  Best Lawyers® 2017, Tupelo, Miss., Personal Injury Litigation-Defendants
  • R. David Kaufman: Best Lawyers® 2017, Jackson, Miss., Product Liability Litigation-Defendants
  • Watts Ueltschey:  Best Lawyers® 2017, Jackson, Miss., Energy Law
  • Ron Yarbrough: Best Lawyers® 2017, Jackson, Miss., Construction Law

The Best Lawyers lists, representing over 125 specialties in all 50 states and Washington D.C., are compiled through an exhaustive peer-review survey in which thousands of the top lawyers in the U.S. confidentially evaluate their professional peers. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as a reliable guide to legal excellence. Because Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 36,000 leading attorneys cast almost 4.4 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas and because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a true honor.

 

Related Attorneys

  • Matthew W. Allen
  • Sheldon G. Alston
  • P. David Andress
  • Benje Bailey
  • Leonard A. Blackwell, II
  • Stephen J. Carmody
  • R. Richard Cirilli, Jr.
  • J. Gordon Flowers
  • John M. Flynt
  • Louis G. Fuller
  • Lynne K. Green
  • James L. Halford
  • William Trey Jones III
  • R. David Kaufman
  • Samuel C. Kelly
  • James A. McCullough II
  • M. Patrick McDowell
  • John E. Milner
  • William C. Penick IV
  • Warren Ken Rogers
  • Joseph A. Sclafani
  • Watts C. Ueltschey
  • Leonard D. Van Slyke, Jr.
  • Joseph E. Varner III
  • John E. Wade
  • Walter S. Weems
  • Ron A. Yarbrough

Three Takeaways from the Recent Settlement in CFPB v. BancorpSouth

July 22, 2016 by Brunini Law

There were many things from the recent settlement of Fair Lending and Fair Housing Claims against BancorpSouth that didn’t surprised me (see United States of American and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. BancorpSouth Bank, Case No. 1:16cv118-GHD-DAS, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Aberdeen Division).  I was not surprised that BancorpSouth settled a Fair Lending investigation since it had been fairly well known that the bank was undergoing an investigation that had put on hold its regulatory applications for two planned bank acquisitions.  I also was not surprised that a Mississippi bank was the subject of such an investigation since Federal regulators have long utilized Mississippi’s tortuous and inescapable past as a reason to plow its fertile ground and harvest a rich political yield in the form Fair Lending investigations.  This regulatory tendency has existed at least a decade, going back to when the FDIC started sending Mississippi banks nasty letters about their HMDA data.  There were three big points worth noting, though, some of which were concepts I already knew but had reinforced by the settlement.  Others, however, were eye-opening revelations.  Below is a description of each.

  1. HMDA Data Matters

I have never represented BancorpSouth on this or any other matter so I don’t have any knowledge of how this investigation began or what exactly triggered it.  However, by reading through the lines in the complaint, there are too many references to “regression analysis,” “statistically significant” rate differentials, and the Memphis MSA to not think that it may have begun as a review of the bank’s HMDA data from Memphis.  That is just a guess, but based on prior experience, it seems to be a good one.  The way these things typically play out, the Feds, after sticking their statistics geeks in the corner with a bank’s HMDA data, find that there are statically significant differentials as to interest rates charged or denial rates for minority borrowers relative to non-minority borrowers.

Their questions start out benign at first, asking whether these differentials can be explained by business non-discriminatory reasons.  What they are looking for is for you to provide them a rate sheet, loan policy, or some other objective measure that shows why the mortgage borrowers were charged a certain rate on a certain loan or why a minority borrower was denied credit.  If they select a sample of loans and find that the rates charged followed closely a standard rate sheet used to price mortgage loans, or if denials of minority applications were the result of the applicant clearly not meeting objective credit standards stipulated in their loan policies, and those factors were carefully documented in the file as the reason for the decision made by the loan officer, the regulators will conclude (hopefully) that the “statistically significant” differences were caused by other non-discriminatory factors and move on to their next prey, I mean bank.  However, if they take a sample to test, and in the process cannot find any objective reason for why minority borrowers would be treated differently, the bank that is the object of the investigation had better hold on; it is going to be a bumpy ride!  This leads me to my second point . . .

  1. Underwriting Discretion is the Fair Lending Death Nail

I am the son of a community banker.  Like all of us, I remember asking my dad one time when I was small why he decided to pick his career.  His dad became a banker later in life, and both of my dad’s older brothers are bankers, so his choice was not a novel one.  Family influence, though, was not the reason he gave.  Instead, my dad believed that, as a community banker, he had the opportunity to help people meet the needs of their businesses and families.  Of course, one of the greatest tools a community banker has in his or her toolbox to pursue this divine calling is good common sense to exercise reasonable discretion when warranted.  Not only does it assist the community banker in pulling that customer out of a tough financial place in life, it also allows the community banker to compete with larger, less flexible institutions that have a tremendous advantage when it comes to economies of scale, especially in today’s compliance environment.

That tool now, though, has become the regulator’s number one enemy.  When it comes to Fair Lending, discretion is a four letter word, especially as to HMDA reportable loans.  If your bank’s LAR reveals that rates paid by minority borrowers or women are slightly higher on average than the control group, and they discover that your loan officers have the discretion to assign to borrowers whatever rates they, in their professional opinion, deem appropriate, your bank is presumed to be guilty of discriminating against minority borrowers until you somehow prove yourself innocent.  This all but forces banks to standardize their pricing and credit decisions, turning consumer credit into a commodity and erasing any competitive advantage community banks may have on such loans over their larger brethren that see the borrower as another number.  Unfortunately, what regulators don’t realize is that the one who really suffers is the borrower, black or white, who just needs a break to get over that next financial hurdle.  After all, you don’t receive any compassion from a loan policy or a rate sheet.

  1. The CFPB is Taking No Prisoners

I’m sure no one was shocked that the CFPB would aggressively pursue fair lending enforcement, especially among those banks that are larger than $10 billion in assets and within the wheelhouse of their examination authority.  There is a reason why that threshold was a big deal during the Dodd-Frank negotiations.  I was flabbergasted, though, by the lengths they went to in order to satisfy their appetite for a trophy kill.  Secret recordings of lower level management meetings and spies sent into branches in markets totally unrelated to where the original problems were found are just two examples of that.  This was not a regulatory investigation; it was a James Bond novel.  Apparently, the CFPB has inherited the playbook of the KGB.

Not only that, but in a settlement that was supposedly negotiated, they felt compelled to include in the complaint unnecessary and embarrassing quotes from their secret recordings just to rub salt in the wound.  I can only hope that waterboarding was not used to convince the bank to accept the complaint’s content.

Make no mistake, the CFPB is on a war path, and it is scalps, not justice, that it is after.  As an agency that is still trying to prove its worth and fend off political and judicial challenges to its constitutionality and unfettered administrative authority, the CFPB is more worried about justifying its existence than protecting its charge, the American consumer.  What will happen to American consumers, though, much less our financial system, when the CFPB scares half of our community banks into ending consumer lending all together and assaults the reputation of the other half until their safety and soundness is compromised?  They will be forced into the arms of industries much less regulated and unconcerned about their wellbeing, I’m sure.  This case may be the best illustration yet of what happens when you separate the consumer regulator from the prudential one.

 

 

 

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held July 12, 2016

July 20, 2016 by Brunini Law

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on July 12, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. Mike Bograd, RPG, chaired the meeting.

The Board approved minutes from both the Regular and Special June meetings. Also the Board approved non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the May meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases and permits to combine:

Surface Mining Bond Release:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Neely Trucking and Excavating Rankin P05-019AT No Additional Release
Dunn Roadbuilders LLC Forrest P06-14 Additional 30% Release

Surface Mining Permits to Combine:

Permittee County Permit
Business Properties, LLC Harrison P80-022T
S&B Industrial Minerals North America, Inc. Monroe P99-040T

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

Agricultural Branch:

The Board approved issuance of coverage under the AFO General Permit (MSG201874) and issuance of construction under the Storm Water Coverage (MSR107157) for Penny Farm in Lincoln County.  The application proposes eight poultry houses and construction activity on thirteen acres of disturbed land.  Staff stated that upon notification by the Applicant, three neighboring property owners submitted letters of concern; however, they did not attend the meeting.  Because the facility’s application is complete and the Applicant is in compliance, MDEQ staff recommended issuance of the Permit.

Solid Waste and Mining Branch:

The Board approved re-issuance of the Pretreatment Permit (MSP092258) for Waste Management of MS, Inc., Plantation Oaks Landfill and Recycling Center and Natchez Hauling in Adams County.  Staff noted that there are no changes to the existing permit.  A public hearing was held and no one was in opposition.  Based on staff recommendation, the Board approved reissuance of the permit.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ General Counsel advised the Board that the request for an evidentiary hearing on July 12, 2016 regarding the Starlanding Rubbish Site has been withdrawn and the prior decision is final.

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ General Counsel advised the Board that there will be a hearing on August 9, 2016 regarding the Permit Modification for Drying Facility Asset Holdings.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on August 9, 2016 at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Department of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

 

 

Related Attorneys

  • John E. Milner
  • Gene Wasson

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held June 14, 2016

June 22, 2016 by Brunini Law

 

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on June 14, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. David H. Snodgrass, RPG chaired the meeting.

The Board approved minutes from the May meeting. Also the Board approved non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the May meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases, application, permits to cancel, and permit to transfer

Surface Mining Bond Release:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
N.L. Carson Construction Co., Inc. Neshoba P09-019 Final 10% Release
W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. DeSoto P13-004T Additional 80% Release
W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. DeSoto P14-004 Additional 80% Release
Mississippi Gravel Sales, LLC Monroe P08-001A Additional 30% Release

Surface Mining Application:

Permittee County Permit
Lankford Consulting Harrison A1911

Surface Mining Permits to Cancel:

Permittee County Permit
Neely Trucking & Excavating Rankin P10-017A
Lamar County Board of Supervisors Lamar P94-045

Surface Mining Permit to transfer:

Permittee County Permit
Coastal Mining & Marine LLC Transfer to Pearlington Clay, LLC Hancock P06-027AT1

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

Construction Branch:

The Board approved issuance of the Modification of Ready Mix Concrete General Permit Coverage (MSG110038) for MMC Materials, Inc. in Horn Lake, DeSoto County.  Upon notification by the Applicant, a neighboring property owner submitted a letter of concern expressing health concerns.  MDEQ replied to the neighboring property owner on June 1, 2016.

Because facility’s application is complete and the facility is currently in compliance, MDEQ recommended issuance of the Modification.

OTHER BUSINESS

The Board unanimously voted to elect Mr. Mike Bograd, RPG, State Geologist and Director of Office of Geology, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality as Chairman of the Board for 2016-2017 effective after this meeting and Mr. Dennis Riecke of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks as Vice Chairman.

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ General Council advised the Board that there will be an evidentiary hearing July 12, 2016 regarding the Starlanding Rubbish Sight.  Special Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth Bolin, Esq. will serve as the Hearing Officer in this matter.

Mr. Roy Furrh stated that MDEQ staff has completed their review of the Water Quality Certification and Stormwater Coverage applications pertaining to the Costco site and asked Board Members if they would be available for a Special Meeting on June 30th at 9:00 a.m.  Upon confirmation of enough Board members to have a quorum, Mr. Furrh notified everyone that MDEQ will move forward with the Proposed Meeting and that Notice will be given once confirmed.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on July 12, 2016 at 9 a.m.

Related Attorneys

  • John E. Milner
  • Gene Wasson

Five Things I Learned Coaching Little League Baseball

June 13, 2016 by Brunini Law

This spring, I returned to the wondrous fields of little league baseball and was fortunate enough to relive some of my happiest memories as a child through the eyes of my oldest son, whom I had the pleasure to coach. If you know me at all, you know that I love baseball, but I can’t think of any time in my life when I enjoyed it more than between the ages of 10 through 14. Those were the times when it was all consuming, but still just a game. When my every thought could be dedicated to it, but my stress levels were rarely raised by it. Baseball was still fun when I was older, but some of the wonder is taken out of it when your coach’s livelihood depends on it and your mistakes can mean much more than losing your rights to a dairy queen milkshake after the game.

This being said, I hate what we as a society are doing to little league baseball. We have removed it from the joyous goat ranches of recreational, Babe Ruth leagues and transferred it almost completely to the exclusive realm of “tournament baseball,” where 7 year olds have to worry about losing their spot on their team when they go 0 for 4, 9 year old pitchers have to worry about holding a runner on base and throwing 150 pitches a weekend, games are played until well after midnight, 40 year old coaches with three days growth of facial hair and a belly that betrays the fact that they are 20 years past their athletic prime berate a right fielder for missing a cut-off man, and the real goal of the organizations running it is to make as much money as possible off of parental conceit and paranoia of falling behind. The shame of it is, in today’s world of “specialization,” coaches and parents have guided little league baseball down a path where many kids who experience it either hate it by the time they get to high school or have had two Tommy John’s surgeries before the age of 18. For many years I avoided it out of principle, with the eventual realization that it is slowly becoming the only game in town. Therefore, in order to allow my son the chance to continue to experience the game that has given so much to me, I decided to coach his tournament baseball team with the hopes that I could control the experience enough to protect him from its ills.

The result, to no surprise, has been a losing baseball team. When your benefits are player development and enjoyment for a greater baseball future tomorrow, your cost is going to be long innings today at the hands of better teams who have carefully culled their talent pool and have played 100 games since this time last year. With my apologies to Thomas Paine, there is nothing that tries a man’s soul like willing 9 ten year olds to get 3 outs. However, because tournament baseball has become so cutthroat, it is also a pretty good microcosm of what it is like to manage a bank today in an ever increasingly hostile environment. Below I will discuss the top five things I learned about guiding an organization through challenging times that hopefully can speak to community bankers as well.

1. No One is Going to Feel Sorry for You

When top seeds in the bracket are decided by how bad you beat your competition, and 10 year old catchers are behind the plate, expect every baserunner to take second base, even when you are getting beat 20 – 5. When your team hasn’t won a game yet this season, but the better teams need an easier path to the finals, expect to always play the top seeds in your pool so that they can be certain to get a higher seed in the bracket. When your winless team gets the third out in the bottom of an inning up 8 – 5 with 30 seconds left, expect to have to start the next inning to finish the game (which you lose 10 – 9). This is just how it is. No freebees are given, and everything has to be earned. No one feels sorry for you when you are struggling in tournament baseball. There may be the occasional “good luck” from the opposing team during the coin flip, or possibly even a stray comment about how they appreciate the fact your team keeps fighting, but in the end, you literally only eat what you can kill. Feeling sorry for yourself is worthless.

Such is also the case in community banking these days. Growing regulation and a hostile regulatory and political environment is choking the life out of our banks on Main Street, and despite the occasional “focus group” or “community banking conferences” where regulators feign empathy for those problems, no one really cares. Politician’s will wax eloquently about how community banks are the life blood of their communities and the only hope for small businesses, but when the vote comes up to really do something about it through legislation, they cave to other special interests every time. As net interest margins continue to shrink, members of the Federal Reserve may act concerned about the affect their interest rate policies are having on community banks, but in the end they will act in a way that is politically expedient to help keep stock values afloat at the cost of an uncertain economic future. This is just the way the world is, and it is forcing community banks to shift from their traditional business model, which typically prioritized community growth and development over profits, to a meaner, leaner model focused on economies of scale and efficiency that causes banks to out-grow their communities in an effort to just survive. Unfortunately, community banks can’t afford to hold on to principles and continue to lose capital like I can choose to hold on to baseball ideals and lose games. Their existence is dependent upon “winning” games today. However, as I fear the current baseball environment is drying up the joy and future of that great game, I also fear that the current banking environment is drying up the future of our community banks, and even worse, our rural communities. Don’t expect sympathy for that dilemma, though, because in the end, no one seems to care.

2. You Have to Eliminate Unforced Errors

When the other team is much better than you, you do yourself absolutely no favors when you have to get 5 outs every inning and they only have to get 3. If there is a fly ball to center, or a grounder to second base, you have to make that play to have a chance, because your competition certainly will. I can’t even count how many times this season the difference in our runs scored and the runs scored by the other team consists almost exclusively of runs that we allowed after what should have been our third out. The other problem is that unforced errors seem to snowball. One error leads to pitcher frustration and a walk or another error, which only compounds the problem. We are still trying to implement this strategy, but I think we have learned that our ability to compete will be directly tied to our ability to just “pitch and catch” and make routine plays.

In community banking, the best analogy to unforced errors is poor loan quality. When margins are tight and overhead is growing, a failure to monitor the credit quality in your portfolio can hurt more than an overthrow to first base. One or two years of relaxed credit standards or a rogue loan officer can lead to loan losses that might be more manageable in better times but can quickly eat into precious capital in the current environment. Therefore, it is important that, during these difficult days, community banks keep their eye on the ball and avoid extending beyond their comfort zone with loan quality. Like a first baseman that stretches before he knows which direction the throw is going, compromising credit standards in an attempt to increase earnings during these difficult times will leave you unable to maneuver when the next recession hits.

3. People May Not Remember What You Do, But They Are Sure To Remember How You Make Them Feel

As someone who coached through our local league this year, I was required to attend a pre-season coach’s clinic that I was convinced would be useless. Why I needed to waste three hours of my time listening to a coach give me information I already knew to pass down to 10 year olds who wouldn’t listen half of the time was beyond me. Needless to say, I did not approach it with the best attitude.

To my surprise, though, the instructor did provide some helpful tips, and it was what he said at the end of the session that stuck with me the most. He began by asking each of us to raise our hands if we remembered what the record of our 10 year old baseball team was. Somewhat surprisingly, not one of us responded by raising our hands. He then asked us to raise our hands if we remembered who our 10 year old baseball coach was. At that point, everyone in the room raised their hands. He closed his point by stating that, no matter how bad each one of us wants to make the little league coaches Hall of Fame, no such institution exists, and no amount of wins will get us there; however, every player we coach will remember us, and wouldn’t we much rather them remember us as the one that engendered in them a love for this great game that they never lost than as a mean SOB that they avoid when they see us in the grocery store 20 years from now. The choice was completely up to us.
Like my players, your customers and employees are not likely to remember that super-low interest rate you gave them on the last loan or whether their raise five years ago was 2% or 2.5%; however, how you treat them is certain to make an impression, and they will always remember whether you made them feel like a valuable part of your bank or as another reason your day has not gone the way you wanted it to. How we treat people matters, not only in little league and banking, but also in life, and those of us who forget that are doomed to dirty looks in the grocery store, no matter how well we perform.

4. Invest in People With Character and Their Growth Will Surprise You

One of our many challenges on the team this year has been that we have several kids who have just not played a whole lot of baseball; however, to their credit, they have all worked hard and become better players. One of my players sticks out, though, because I never thought he had a chance. He was one of our later additions to the team, and when I put him on the roster I wasn’t even sure what he looked like. I knew we needed another player, though, and his mom said he wanted to play, so he was our man. George, as we will call him, came to the first practice in January incredibly rough, looking as if he had never played a game of catch in his life. My initial hope for George was that he would eventually become either bored or discouraged so that I would never have to deal with the dilemma of sitting him on the bench every game for fear that he would embarrass himself and the team.

What I underestimated, though, was George’s determination and growing love for this great game. George quickly fell in love with baseball, and this spring he claimed any free moment or dollar his dad had by begging him for trips to the batting cage or for weeklong baseball camps held in the area. I also underestimated George’s intelligence and attention span, which soaked up every helpful tip he was given and maximized every opportunity he had to grow as a baseball player. George still may not be my most talented player, and he has a long way to go before I consider him one of my best, but he is no longer my worst, and he has made some serious contributions to the team. Just this past weekend, he caught a fly ball in right field to mercifully end a long inning, becoming a savior I never would have suspected in January. While there have been many challenges and heartaches this season, George has certainly been one of the bright spots, and his experience epitomizes why I wanted to do this in the first place: to generate a love for this great game in the hearts of kids who had been excluded from it and watch them grow into players I never thought they could be.

Banks, like 10 year old baseball tournament teams, and all other organizations for that matter, tend to focus much more acquiring talented personnel with impressive resumes to do the job immediately than on developing some of their current employees who may have much less talent or experience today but with encouragement and inspiration have the character and work ethic to become a critical contributor in the future. Their path to success may not be as certain and their learning curve will definitely be steeper, but if they are motivated and willing to work hard, their upside is possibly greater and the initial overhead that must be invested to get them is sure to be much less painful. When they do develop into the banker you never thought they could be, you can take pride in knowing that you were the one who helped them get there.

5. Hope Changes Everything

While it is incredibly easy to focus only on the challenges when you are losing baseball games or dealing with bank examiners, the ability to maintain hope and project it to others around you is not only important, it is critical to survival. My son is a pretty good athlete that chose (possibly with his father’s prompting) to play for his dad instead of on some other more competitive teams with different goals; however, he has had a pretty tough year with all of the losing. Much like his father, he hates to lose more than he likes to win, and despite the fact that he and I both acknowledged at the outset that we might not win a game this year, he has gone through some valleys when his faith in our decision and his abilities has been hanging by a thread. Self-confidence can be a challenge for any pre-pubescent 10 year old, but it is especially challenging when you lose 15 baseball games in a row.

The low-point came late one night after he and I were driving back home following a game he pitched pretty well in but lost nonetheless by 10 runs. He was distraught at the fact that he continued to lose ball games, one of which he was on the mound when the winning run crossed the plate. He claimed that he wanted to quit altogether, one of his father’s greatest fears. The next morning at 9 AM, we had to be back on the baseball field, and as fate would have it, my son was on the mound in the bottom of the last inning with the score tied 5-5. He came in to pitch when we were down 5-3, and our team rallied to score two runs in the top of the inning to tie it. Two errors later, we lost the game 6-5, and there was not a dry eye in the dugout, including mine. After 10 minutes of silence on the ride home, to my surprise, my son was the first to speak when he said “Daddy, I think we are going to win a game.” At the time I was certain his spirit was crushed and all hope was lost, he found hope in the fact that we had come so close to our first win. I wish I could give you the story book ending and tell you that we won our next game, but unfortunately we are still waiting on that. The moral of the story, though, is since that morning, other than the occasional 10 year old tantrum, my son’s attitude has completely changed thanks to hope, and it has made him and our baseball team better.

We have to remember this lesson in banking. It is so easy for us to get caught up in the latest CFPB threat, or the next regulation, or the terrible yields earned on assets, or the current political environment, but the leaders of our banks have to find some way to give hope to their shareholders, employees, and customers. Community banking, after all, is a calling, and the blessings it provides our society are much greater than the sum of the profits generated by its institutions. We must find hope in the differences made in communities each day by caring bankers and cling to the faith that the hard work will one day be rewarded, if not in this life, than certainly in the next.

 

 

Related Attorneys

  • Thomas E. Walker, Jr.

Jones, McNeel and Drinkwater Obtain Summary Judgment in Significant Lender Liability Case

June 10, 2016 by Brunini Law

On May 18, 2016, Trey Jones, Taylor McNeel, and William Drinkwater obtained summary judgment for one of the firm’s bank clients in a significant case which raised numerous important issues in the area of wrongful foreclosure claims. The plaintiff alleged that the Bank wrongfully foreclosed on his home by failing to comply with the terms of the deed of trust, failing to comply with unspecified Department of Veterans Affairs regulations and by taking action contrary to a forbearance agreement. Plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Following extensive briefing and oral argument, the Harrison County Circuit Court determined, among other things, that plaintiff had failed to prove recoverable damages, that the VA’s request for extension did not create a duty for the Bank to forbear, that a borrower must object at the foreclosure sale prior to bringing a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit and that once a borrower fails to make timely loan payments, she cannot sustain a claim for breach of the loan agreement. Accordingly, the Circuit Court granted the Bank summary judgment on all of the claims asserted in the complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Related Attorneys

  • Taylor B. McNeel
  • William D. Drinkwater
  • William Trey Jones III

Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board Summary of Meeting Held May 10, 2016

May 30, 2016 by Brunini Law

Prepared By Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC

The Environmental Practice Group of the Brunini Law Firm publishes a summary of the proceedings of each monthly meeting of the Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board and of the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. We strive to provide, in a succinct newsletter format, the key points addressed in each meeting that will be of interest to the regulated community in Mississippi.

If you have any questions concerning the content of a newsletter it would like further information about the matters addressed in a newsletter, please contact John Milner, the Brunini Firm Environmental Practice Group leader, at jmilner@brunini.com or (601) 960-684

Meeting Summary

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board (Board) convened its regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on May 10, 2016 at the offices of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality in Jackson.  Mr. David H. Snodgrass, RPG chaired the meeting.  The Board approved minutes from the April Regular meeting along with non-controversial actions/certifications by the staff since the April meeting.

Following a prepared agenda, items considered were as follows:

OFFICE OF GEOLOGY

In accordance with MDEQ staff recommendations, the Board approved the following surface mining bond releases.

Surface Mining Bond Releases:

Permittee County Permit Staff Recommendation
Eutaw Construction Co., Inc. Lee P01-008 Final 25% release
Eutaw Construction Co., Inc. Madison P10-009T No additional release
Hammett Gravel Company, Inc. Yazoo P06-003AA Initial 10% release
W.G. Yates & Sons Construction DeSoto P13-008T Initial 10% release

The Board canceled the Surface Mining Permits held by Yazoo County Board of Supervisors (P01-002 and P91-208T).  MDEQ staff informed the Board that government entities are not required to post bond for surface mining permits and that all areas affected by this permit have been fully reclaimed.

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

There were no items to discuss.

OTHER BUSINESS

The Board will hold officer elections at the next meeting.

Mr. Roy Furrh, MDEQ Legal Counsel stated that an evidentiary hearing for Star Landing Rubbish Site in DeSoto County has been requested by two individuals.  The hearing has been scheduled for July 2, 2016.

The next Permit Board meeting will be held on June 14, 2016 at 9 a.m.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Environmental Department of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Related Attorneys

  • John E. Milner
  • Gene Wasson

Are You Ready?-(For Expanded Employee Overtime Eligibility)

May 30, 2016 by Brunini Law

The United States Department of Labor (the DOL) has released its Final Rule that will broaden federal overtime pay regulations to cover 4.2 million additional workers who are currently exempt from overtime eligibility.  The Final Rule updates the regulations governing which executive, administrative, and professional employees are entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA).

The FLSA requires employers to pay its “non-exempt employees” overtime (1 ½ the workers’ “regular rate of pay”) for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week.   The DOL’s regulations implementing the FLSA set forth a variety of employment classifications that are “exempt” from the FLSA’s overtime requirement, including employees performing executive, administrative, and/or professional job duties.  In order for an employee to qualify as an exempt “white collar” employee, he/she must meet three “tests”:  (1) the employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed; (2) the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount; and (3) the employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties (as defined by the regulations).  The DOL last updated these regulations in 2004, setting the minimum salary threshold at $455 per week (or $23,660 annually).

The DOL’s Final Rule raises the minimum salary level for exempt employees to $913 per week (or $47,476 annually) and increases the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt “highly compensated employees” to $134,004 annually (previously set at $100,000).  Additionally, the Final Rule establishes a mechanism for automatically updating the minimum salary level every three years.  Finally, the Final Rule allows employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments to satisfy up to 10% of the new standard salary level.  The Final Rule did not change the duties needed to qualify for the “white collar” exemption.

The Final Rule has been anticipated since the DOL released its proposed rule in July 2015.  The Final Rule’s salary level increase is less than the proposed rule’s projected salary level of $970 per week (or $50,440 annually).  However, the Final Rule’s salary level for “highly compensated employees” is more than the proposed rule’s projected salary level of $122,148.  Finally, the Final Rule’s mechanism for automatically updating the salary level every three years is different than the proposed rule’s mechanism for automatically updating the salary level annually.

In an email yesterday, President Obama stated that the Final Rule “is a step in the right direction to strengthen and secure the middle class by raising Americans’ wages.”  Vice President Biden, who characterized the Final Rule as “restoring and expanding access to the middle class,” is expected to promote the Final Rule today in Columbus, Ohio.  Opponents of the Final Rule have argued that it places a huge cost and burden on employers and demotes millions of workers.  Members of Congress who oppose the Final Rule have stated that they will attempt to block it during a mandated congressional review period.  However, any such attempts are expected to be vetoed by President Obama.

The Final Rule will go into effect on December 1, 2016.  Future automatic updates will occur every three years, beginning on January 1, 2020.  Although the Final Rule does not become effective for several months, employers should be proactive and engage their legal counsel to begin planning for the change now.  Preparations should include auditing current practices and projecting the cost of change and FLSA compliance under the anticipated new framework. This includes evaluating the possibility and effects of significantly higher operating costs.

This Newsletter is a publication of the Labor and Employment Department of the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC located in Jackson, Mississippi. This Newsletter is not designed or intended to provide legal or professional advice, as any such advice requires the consideration of the facts of the specific situation.

IRS Circular 230 Notice

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein

Related Attorneys

  • Stephen J. Carmody
  • Christopher R. Fontan
  • Tammye Campbell Brown
  • Claire W. Ketner
  • Lauren O. Lawhorn
  • Scott F. Singley

Patrick McDowell represents the Mississippi Chapter of the Federal Bar Association at the FBA’s Annual Leadership Seminar and Capitol Hill Day

May 30, 2016 by Brunini Law

305Brunini’s Patrick McDowell represented the Mississippi Chapter of the Federal Bar Association at the FBA’s Annual Leadership Seminar and Capitol Hill Day in Washington, D.C. on May 19-21, 2016.  Shown here are McDowell meeting with Sen. Thad Cochran and with Rep. Gregg Harper.

Related Attorneys

  • M. Patrick McDowell

Halford and Ueltschey featured in Expert Guides

May 30, 2016 by Brunini Law

Expert Guides recently published their Energy edition, and two Brunini lawyers were named. Jim Halford and Watts Ueltschey, both members of the firm’s regulatory department, were featured.

Jim Halford represents energy, pipeline, and gas, telecommunications and electric utility clients in the Gulf South region with the Brunini Firm. He serves on the Firm’s four-person Board of Directors and is past Chairman of the Firm’s Regulatory Department.

Watts Ueltschey has spent most of his career representing companies and individuals in the energy sector, both upstream and mid-stream. He was named the 2015 Attorney of the Year by the Mississippi Business Journal.

Expert Guides is a world-wide research process that has been researching legal markets for over 20 years. The guides cover Aviation, Banking, Capital Markets, Commercial Arbitration, Competition and Antitrust, Construction, Corporate Governance, Energy and Natural Resources, Information Technology, Insolvency and Restructuring, Insurance and Reinsurance, International Trade, investment Funds, Islamic Finance, Labour and Employment, Litigation, Media, Mergers and Acquisitions, Patents, Private Equity, Product Liability, Project Finance, Real Estate, Rising Stars, Shipping, Structured Finance and Securitisation, Tax, Telecoms, Trade Marks, Transfer Pricing, Trusts and Estates, and White Collar Crime.

Related Attorneys

  • James L. Halford
  • Watts C. Ueltschey
  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 11
  • Page 12
  • Page 13
  • Page 14
  • Page 15
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 25
  • Go to Next Page »

sidebar

News

  • News
  • Blog
  • Recent Experience
  • Rankings & Awards
  • Newsletters
    • Banking
    • Brunini Update
    • Environmental Law
    • Labor and Employment
    • Health Care
  • Newsletter Signup
  • Jackson
Facebook LinkedIn Instagram
©2026 Brunini. All rights reserved. Web Site by Fishman Marketing.
  • Firm Access
  • Disclaimer
  •