June 2016 – Construction Law

BREXIT: Is Your Business Prepared? Construction & Engineering

Jun 30 2016

By Matthew E. Smith and Inga K. Hall, K&L Gates, London

It seems unlikely that the UK’s exit from the EU will result in significant legal or regulatory changes for clients investing or working on construction or infrastructure projects in the UK in the short term.

The uncertainty over where Brexit will take both our UK and international construction clients in the medium to longer term is however likely to be reflected in an uptake in disputes, particularly in adjudication, and some UK projects and/or foreign investment decisions put on hold (or remaining on hold) until the picture becomes clearer.

Click here to read the full article on K&L Gates HUB.

THE CURIOUS CREATURE THAT IS A MECHANIC’S LIEN IN BANKRUPTCY

Jun 27 2016

By Joseph B.C. Kluttz, K&L Gates, Charlotte

“God looks out for drunks, fools and construction lawyers.”

— with apologies to Otto von Bismarck

Many contractors and non-bankruptcy practitioners are generally aware that upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition a variety of collection impediments spring into existence, including indignities like the “automatic stay,” lien-trumping provisions and “preferences.”

Many involved in the construction industry may be unaware, however, that because of special provisions and exemptions applicable to mechanics’ liens in bankruptcy, a contractor (or subcontractor) may be able to improve its position dramatically on the eve of — or even after — the filing of a bankruptcy petition by a counterparty. That could become increasingly important as clouds of economic and political uncertainty continue to gather on the horizon.

Timely Response to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Notice Critical for Stakeholders Interested in Securing Congressional Authorization for Future Water Resources Development Projects

Jun 22 2016

By Stephen A. Martinko, James A. Sartucci, Michael G. H. Pfeifer, K&L Gates, Washington, D.C.

Stakeholders with an interest in securing potential Congressional authorization for water resources development projects in future Water Resources Development Act (“WRDA”) legislation should pay close attention to a notice recently published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) in the Federal Register seeking proposals for its report to Congress on future water resources development.

Entities interested in pursuing potential Congressional authorization for future water resources development activities should act now to submit proposals to the USACE. Congress uses the information provided by the USACE to determine authorization priorities in future WRDA legislation, and only those proposals that are submitted by the USACE to Congress are eligible for authorization.

The USACE will review proposed submissions from stakeholders, and the Secretary of the Army is required to submit to Congress an annual report of those activities that meet the criteria established by Congress.

To read the full Legal Insight, click here.

New Bill Planned for the Development and Funding of Offshore Wind Energy in Germany

Jun 06 2016

By Christoph Mank, K&L Gates, Berlin

An introduction of bidding processes for determining the amount of funding for the generation of electricity from onshore wind turbines, offshore wind turbines and large photovoltaic systems is planned with an amendment of the German Renewable Energy Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz).

The German government sees the transition to bidding processes as being a central instrument for attaining the goals laid down by policy makers regarding the development of the share of renewable energies in the production of electricity. The political goal is to increase the share of renewables in the amount of electricity generated to between 40% and 45% by 2025, between 55% and 60% by 2035 and at least 80% by 2050. In real terms the increase in the contribution of renewable energy to the electricity production in Germany has gone from 25.3% in 2013 to 28% in 2014 and 32.6% in 2015. It is the political will of the current government not to fall below or exceed this established scope for expansion. For this purpose the aim is to fix the tendered quantities at a level that is as accurate as possible on the one hand; on the other hand, a high realisation rate needs to be achieved with regard to the projects awarded in the context of the bidding process.

A further goal of the general introduction of bidding processes for establishing the amount of funding is to limit the funding to a level that is economically essential. In order to ensure that this amount is determined correctly by means of the planned bidding processes, a high level of competition must be achieved for these.

FIDIC Update: The Employer’s Claim to Liquidated Damages and Performance Security under the Yellow Book

Jun 01 2016

By Camilla de Moraes, K&L Gates, London

The English courts have recently considered a number of cases involving the FIDIC suite of contracts (see here, here, and here for our previous blog posts). The most recent case of J Murphy & Sons Ltd v Beckton Energy Ltd [2016] EWHC 607 (TCC)arises out of a contract based on FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design Build for Electrical and Mechanical Plant and for Building and Engineering Works designed by the Contractor First Edition 1999 (FIDIC Yellow Book) with amendments.

The court was required to consider the relationship between two clauses in the Contract, namely Sub-Clause 2.5 (Employer’s Claims) and Sub-Clause 8.7 (Delay Damages and Bonus) with reference also to Sub-Clause 3.5 (Determinations) and 4.2 (Performance Security). The issue in dispute was whether determination by the Engineer of the contractor’s liability for liquidated damages was a pre-requisite to recovery of liquidated damages by the Employer. The court held that the clause entitling the Employer to liquidated damages operated outside of the regime in Sub-Clause 2.5 and therefore the Engineer’s determination was not a pre-requisite to the Employer’s entitlement. This case also confirms the traditionally held view that obtaining injunctive relief preventing a beneficiary from calling on a performance bond will rarely be possible.

Archive:June 2016