February 2011 – Construction Law

K&L Gates’ Arbitration World, February 2011

Feb 17 2011

From the Editors

Welcome to the 14th edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates’ Arbitration Group that highlights significant developments and issues in international and domestic arbitration for executives and in-house counsel with responsibility for dispute resolution.

We hope you find this edition of Arbitration World of interest, and we welcome any feedback (email ian.meredith@klgates.com or peter.morton@klgates.com).

In this Issue:

News from around the World
World Investment Treaty Arbitration Update
The New Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance
Rules on Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrators
Recent English Decisions on Non-Parties to Arbitration Agreements
Clearing the Hurdles of International Arbitration in Asia, Part 1
Arbitration Provisions with a Non-U.S. Forum and Non-U.S. Choice-of-Law May Be Struck Down as Against U.S. Public Policy
New International Arbitration Decree Strengthens the Attractiveness of Paris as a Place of Arbitration
English Court Refuses to Expand Scope of Review of Arbitral Awards
Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India – The Latest Instalment

View the entire February 2011 edition here.

Navigating State Design Build Statutes in the Wake of a “Turned Federal Battleship”

Feb 16 2011

By: Josh M. Leavitt, John C. McIlwee, K&L Gates

For Presentation to Practising Law Institute Symposium
Building Better Construction Contracts: Tailoring Incentives, Creating Collaboration and Developing Effective Risk Allocation

Panel Discussion: Creating a Better Design/Build Agreement

April, 2011, New York City

Those attending this symposium no doubt are familiar with the touted benefits of the design build delivery method: (1) single point of responsibility to owner; (2) shortening certain project times; (3) fewer change orders and more cost-certainty; (4) fostering higher quality work-product; (5) reduced finger-pointing in the event of claims; and (6) minimizing certain owner’s risks. While design build is widely used on suitable projects in the private sector, the story has been different in the public sector, particularly at the state level.

To view the entire article, click here.

To learn more about this event and to register, click here.

No License; No Claim; No Recovery: Oregon Contractors Beware!

Feb 07 2011

Stellar J Corp. v. Smith & Loveless, Inc., 2010 WL 3118360 (D. Or. Aug. 5, 2010)

By: Tom Wolfendale, K&L Gates, Seattle

Overview:

A general contractor ("general") brought a claim, originally in state court, against one of its first tier subcontractors ("sub") for breach of contract; in turn, the first tier subcontractor removed the action to federal court and brought claims against the general and its surety for breach and quantum meruit.

On a public works project, the sub was to supply and install equipment for a city wastewater treatment project. At the time of contracting with the general, the sub did not have an Oregon Contractor’s license. During the work, the general terminated the sub for failure to perform. The sub counterclaimed alleging the general breached and also sued the general’s surety for recovery. The general asserted an affirmative defense that the sub did not have an Oregon license and could not prosecute its counterclaims.

The general contractor sought summary judgment against the sub claims based on the sub’s failure to obtain an Oregon license. The federal contract dismissed the sub’s claims.

Archive:February 2011