Articles and Publications – Page 10

Welcome to the 23rd Edition of K&L Gates’ Arbitration World

Aug 16 2013

Welcome to the 23rd edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates’ International Arbitration Group that highlights significant developments and issues in international and domestic arbitration for executives and in-house counsel with responsibility for dispute resolution.

To view Arbitration World, click here.

To download a printable PDF of the publication, open the link above and click on the far right icon in the magazine toolbar at the top of the page.

We are delighted to be able to include in this edition a guest contribution from Wieger Wielinga of Omni Bridgeway, funder and manager of cross border claim recoveries. In his article, Wieger offers his insights and practical tips for the enforcement of arbitral awards against sovereign states and entities under their control, advising that parties overlook at their peril the potential risks and pitfalls of enforcement of awards.

We also include in this edition our usual update on developments from around the globe in international arbitration and investment treaty arbitration, along with specific articles covering some of those developments, along with other topics of interest in more detail, authored by members of K&L Gates’ International Arbitration Group.

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).

The Projects and Construction Review, Chapter 22 “Italy”

Aug 07 2013

Third Edition, Law Business Research Ltd.

Chapter 22 by: Francesco Sanna, Anna Amprimo and Carolina Teresa Arroyo, K&L Gates, Milan

I INTRODUCTION

The current state of Italian project finance is the result of a trend initiated more than 20 years ago, when public resources started to become scarce and the construction or infrastructure needed private funds to be carried out.

First came the realisation of energy plants – especially the renewables sector with the CIP6 regulation, which started in 1992 – where project finance started to be used in Italy on the basis of the UK experience. Such project finance schemes were initially purely private and fostered by public subsidies in the sale of green energy to the state. In the light of the success of such structures, the Italian state in the late 1990s passed a specific regulation to use project finance schemes to finance, build and operate public infrastructures in the context of European framework legislation on public works. The procedure, in brief, provided that private sponsors could submit autonomously to the authorities’ projects to finance, build and operate public infrastructure.

In the case of ‘cold’ infrastructure, public grants are available to subsidise business plans; public subsidies, however, need to comply with Eurostat rules and need only cover a minority part of the investment. This procedure has passed through many legislative changes in the past decade and is now regulated under Article 153 et seq. of the Italian Act for Public Works, which provides a specific procedure for selecting sponsors in public PFI schemes. Such schemes are extensively utilised in a wide range of infrastructures in Italy, with particular focus on hospitals and roads. Purely private PFI schemes are still used in the energy sector, with a specific focus on renewable and photovoltaic projects.

These schemes are financed by major Italian banks, and their development has been helped by the setting up of regional public agencies that direct and manage all the major public PFI schemes dealing with infrastructure, but also urban regeneration programmes that involve the disposal of public assets.

(Footnotes omitted.)

To read the full chapter, click here.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd.
This article was first published in The Projects and Construction Review, 3rd edition (published in July 2013 – editor Júlio César Bueno).
For further information please email Adam.Sargent@lbresearch.com

Connecticut Supreme Court Determines Damage Caused by Unintended Faulty Work Constitutes Property Damage Resulting from an “Occurrence” Under Standard Commercial General Liability Policy

Jul 01 2013

By: Frederic J. Giordano & Ashley L. Turner, K&L Gates, Newark

Jurisdictions are split over whether defective construction can give rise to an occurrence under commercial general liability insurance policies. Some jurisdictions have held that faulty workmanship cannot constitute the basis for an occurrence because it is not the type of risk intended to be insured by commercial general liability policies or lacks the fortuity necessary to be considered an accident. In contrast, other jurisdictions have held that faulty workmanship may constitute the basis for an occurrence because it is unintended. The Connecticut Supreme Court joined those courts holding that faulty workmanship may give rise to an occurrence in the recent decision Capstone Building Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886, 2013 WL 2396276 (Conn. June 11, 2013) (“Capstone”).

To continue reading, click here.

Determining the Scope of “Additional Insured” Coverage: Recent ISO CGL Insurance Form Revisions Merit Close Attention By Contracting Parties

May 09 2013

By Roberta D. Anderson, K&L Gates, Pittsburgh

It is common among parties to sophisticated construction projects, service agreements, leases, and many other types of projects and transactions, to assess the risks associated with their contractual activities and allocate those risks through a combination of contractual indemnification provisions and insurance requirements. In the construction setting, for example, project owners, general contractors and developers (so-called “upstream” parties) typically require their subcontractors and sub-subcontractors (“downstream” parties) to indemnify them for claims arising from the contract work. In addition to the contractual indemnification provisions, upstream parties frequently require that they be provided with “additional insured” status on the downstream indemnitor’s/named insured’s general liability insurance policy. This provides a number of benefits to the upstream indemnitee. It effectively gives the additional insured/indemnitee direct coverage rights under the indemnitor’s insurance policy, preserves the indemnitee’s own liability coverage and may protect the indemnitee in the event the contractual indemnification provision in the parties’ contract is determined to be void and unenforceable.

To continue reading, click here.

Supreme Court of Minnesota Upholds Denial of Coverage to Additional Insured in the Absence of Vicarious Liability

Apr 23 2013

By Andrew R. Stanton, Frederic J. Giordano, David R. Osipovich

Introduction

Construction contractors and subcontractors, as well as commercial policyholders generally, will wish to take note of a recent Supreme Court of Minnesota decision that lends insight into the scope of coverage provided by additional insured endorsements in insurance policies, the scope of protection afforded by indemnity provisions in construction contracts, and the reach of anti-indemnity state statutes.

In Eng’g & Const. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co., Inc., 825 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 2013), the Court held that an endorsement making a contractor an additional insured on its subcontractor’s general liability policy only to the extent that damage was caused by the subcontractor’s acts or omissions, and which further expressly stated that the contractor did not qualify as an additional insured with respect to its independent acts or omissions, provides additional insured coverage only for the contractor’s vicarious liability for the subcontractor’s negligence. Because a jury found that the subcontractor was not negligent, the Supreme Court held that no basis existed to hold the contractor vicariously liable and that the contractor did not qualify as an additional insured on the subcontractor’s policy.

To continue reading, click here.

Welcome to the 22nd Edition of K&L Gates’ Arbitration World

Apr 15 2013

Welcome to the 22nd edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates’ International Arbitration Group that highlights significant developments and issues in international and domestic arbitration for executives and in-house counsel with responsibility for dispute resolution.

To view Arbitration World in our new online magazine format, click here.

To download a printable PDF of the publication, open the link above and click on the far right icon in the magazine toolbar at the top of the page.

We are delighted to be able to include in this edition a guest contribution from Rubini Ventouras, Group Executive Legal Affairs, Asia Pacific, of Newmont Mining Corporation. In her article, Rubini offers her perspectives on the challenges associated with the management of disputes in multiple, widely varying jurisdictions and explains why arbitration remains her preferred process for the resolution of international commercial disputes.

We are also pleased to welcome a contribution from James Blick, Director at TheJudge Limited, a leading broker of litigation and arbitration funding and after-the-event insurance. In his article, James offers some practical tips and insights on how to get the best deal when negotiating with potential third-party sources of funding for arbitration.

This edition also includes our usual update on developments from around the globe in both international commercial arbitration and investment treaty arbitration, along with specific articles covering some of those developments and other topics of interest in more detail, authored by members of K&L Gates’ International Arbitration Group. This edition includes a contribution from our new colleagues in Melbourne, Australia (following the combination of K&L Gates LLP with Middletons, effective 1 January 2013) describing a recent constitutional challenge to the international arbitration regime in Australia.

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).

Changes to North Carolina’s Mechanics’ Lien Statute

Apr 01 2013

By Brian P. Evans & Samuel T. Reaves, K&L Gates, Charlotte

Significant changes in North Carolina’s mechanics’ lien statute take effect on Monday, April 1, 2013. These changes impose new duties on property owners regarding the designation of a private lien agent for almost every real estate construction project. An owner’s failure to comply may result in the inability to obtain grading and building permits and also in mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens being given added priority or validity, so it is important that parties involved in North Carolina real estate construction projects become familiar with the new procedures under the statute.

Welcome to the 21st Edition of K&L Gates’ Arbitration World

Dec 19 2012

Welcome to the 21st edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates’ International 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 are delighted to be able to include in this edition a guest contribution from David Burt, Corporate Counsel for E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont). In his article, David describes the way in which DuPont’s “Global ADR Guide”, for use by DuPont’s 200 in-house lawyers across the world, came to be developed.

We are also pleased to include an article by Mick Smith, Partner & Co-Founder of Calunius Capital LLP, one of the leading providers of third party funding. Third party funding is becoming ever more prevalent in both litigation and arbitration. In his article, Mick describes the processes of case assessment and case monitoring from the funder’s perspective. This is the first of what will be a short series of articles on the important topic of third party funding in international arbitration.

We also include in this edition our usual update on developments from around the globe in international arbitration and investment treaty arbitration, along with specific articles covering some of those developments and other topics of interest in more detail, authored by members of K&L Gates’ International Arbitration Group.

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:

• DuPont Navigates ADR Worldwide
• News from around the World
• World Investment Treaty Arbitration Update
• Third Party Funding: Case Assessment and Monitoring
• U.S. Supreme Court Fires Shot across Oklahoma’s Bow
• What Qualifies as an Investment? A Primer on Protecting Foreign Investments (Part 2)
• Astro: Affirming Singapore’s Position on Challenging Awards on Jurisdictional Grounds
• No Dispute About It – Dispute Boards are Hot in Chinese Construction Projects
• A Comparative Analysis of the “Choice of Law” Approaches to Privilege in International Proceedings
• UAE Arbitration Insight – New York Convention Shifts Enforcement Approach

To view the entire edition, click here.

Careful What You Ask For: Ten Construction and Design Contract Provisions That May Be Unenforceable

Nov 13 2012

Josh M. Leavitt, K&L Gates LLP and Daniel G. Rosenberg

It is not unusual to see contracts in the construction industry that shift risks downstream. Especially in markets where new projects are scarce, contractors and design professionals often have little leverage beyond their particular expertise or their relationships to modify contract provisions that shift significant risk to them.

Legislatures have responded by passing a variety of construction specific statutes designed to “level the playing field.” Examples of such legislation include Prompt Payment Acts (which are designed to protect contractors from slow payers), anti-indemnity acts (which limit the effectiveness of contractual indemnity clauses) and other construction “fairness” legislation.

To continue reading, click here.

Pennsylvania Contractors to Ring in the New Year with New Employment Eligibility Verification Requirements

Oct 23 2012

By Jacquelyn S. Bryan & Hayes C. Stover, K&L Gates, Pittsburgh

Effective January 1, 2013, all contractors and subcontractors working on Pennsylvania public works projects will be required to verify the employment eligibility of any newly hired workers through the federal E-Verify program. Designed to preserve local jobs, this new legislative measure will impose new burdens on contractors and subcontractors and will subject them to potentially stiff penalties in the event of non-compliance.

The Public Works Employment Verification Act was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett on July 5, 2011. As a precondition to being awarded a public works contract, contractors and subcontractors will be required to supply the Pennsylvania public agency that awarded the contract with a signed verification certifying that they have verified or will verify the employment eligibility of any “new” employee to be assigned to the public work using the federal E-Verify program.

To view the complete alert online, click here.

Catagory:Articles and Publications