Construction Law – Page 28 – Legal issues, news, and regulations concerning the construction industry

Maryland Gets Tough On Classification Of Workers As “Independent Contractors”

Nov 12 2009

The State of Maryland is cracking down on what it perceives to be a problem with construction or landscaping contractors and subcontractors misclassifying workers as “independent contractors” instead of as “employees.” Maryland’s new enforcement mechanisms have the potential to impose significant penalties for misclassification. As a result of these new enforcement schemes, all construction companies with workers located in Maryland and who are classified as “independent contractors” should carefully review such classifications for compliance with new statutory and enforcement regimes to make sure such workers have not been inadvertently misclassified.

To read the full article, click here.

K&L Gates Arbitration World, October 2009

Oct 08 2009

From the Editors

Welcome to the 10th 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: peter.morton@klgates.com or ian.meredith@klgates.com).

In This Issue

• News from around the World
• The Arbitration Fairness Act: A Fundamental Shift in U.S. Arbitration Policy?
• Saipem v. Bangladesh: The Use of an Investment Treaty to Enforce an Arbitral Award
• ReliaStar Life v. EMC National Life: Second Circuit Allows Award of Attorneys’ Fees as a Sanction for “Bad Faith” in the Face of a Contrary Contract Term
• International Arbitration in Singapore: Recent Developments
• Proposed Changes in the Interface Between Courts and International Arbitration in the EU
• A Sea Change in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Cases? U.S. Fifth Circuit and Two District Courts Refuse Discovery to Parties to Foreign Arbitrations
• Third Party Funding in Arbitration: A Perspective from England
• Protocol of Enforcement Affords Reassurance on Enforcement of DIFC-LCIA Arbitral Awards and DIFC Judgments Beyond DIFC Boundaries
• Recent English Decisions on Non-Parties to Arbitration Agreements

View the entire October 2009 Edition here.

Pandemic Flu Risk for Major Projects

Sep 10 2009

By Peter Dzakula, K&L Gates

1. What is the risk?

Since the end of April 2009, when swine flu (Influenza A(H1N1)) was first reported in Mexico and the United States , swine flu has spread globally. It has been reported that there are now almost 36,000 cases in 76 countries (with over 6,000 cases in the UK ). As a result, the World Health Organisation has raised the swine flu alert to "Phase 6" and referred to it as a "global pandemic". At this stage, it has been reported that the symptoms of swine flu have been mild and the number of deaths, globally, have been in line with seasonal flu averages. However, it has been said that if the virus mutates and becomes more virulent it will pose a greater threat, particularly in the winter months. The consequences under construction contracts used for major projects in such a scenario are examined below.

To continue reading, click here.

K&L Gates Enters Middle East with Opening of Dubai Office

Jun 02 2009

New York and Dubai— Global law firm K&L Gates LLP has established its 33rd office worldwide with the opening of an office in Dubai, the firm’s first in the Middle East. The launch, which follows K&L Gates international office openings in Singapore and Frankfurt earlier this year, includes the addition of partner Paul de Cordova to the firm’s corporate and projects practices, as well as the relocation of one of the firm’s senior dispute resolution partners, Neal R. Brendel, from the firm’s Pittsburgh office.

“The Gulf Region is, has been, and will continue to be of strategic importance to the global economy,” said K&L Gates Chairman and Global Managing Partner Peter J. Kalis. “K&L Gates is delighted to launch our presence in the Region to serve our distinguished clients who are active in the United Arab Emirates and throughout the Middle East.”

K&L Gates Arbitration World, May 2009

Jun 01 2009

Arbitration World is an update for clients and contacts on recent developments in international arbitration law and practice.

From the Editors
Welcome to the 9th 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.

In This Issue
• News from around the World
• Enforceability in the United States of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Signs On To Majority Trend
• Legal Privilege – A Recurrent Problem in International Arbitration
• Challenges Ahead: Arbitrating with Russian and Eastern European Parties
• More U.S. Courts Permit Discovery in Aid of Foreign Arbitrations, but Texas Dissents: U.S.C. § 1782
• The Right to be Heard: CAS Award Annulled by Swiss Federal Supreme Court
• Recent ICSID Decisions on the Meaning of “Investment”
• U.S. Supreme Court Permits Non-signatories to Arbitration Agreements to Seek Stays of Litigation and Interlocutory Appeals under FAA

View the May 2009 Edition here.

Drafting an Effective International Arbitration Agreement

Jun 01 2009

By Ian Meredith, K&L Gates

This chapter was first published in the PLC Cross-border Dispute Resolution Handbook 2009/09 Volume 2: Arbitration Handbook and is posted here with permission.

All too often the dispute resolution clause is the clause that receives the least attention. Pre-existing clauses are cut and pasted from existing agreements with little or no assessment made of the suitability of specific provisions, often late in the life of the drafting process. While any form of dispute resolution clause is rarely high on a party’s list of priorities when the contract is drawn up, the terms of that clause may well be crucial in the event of a dispute.

This chapter considers:

• The essential requirements of a valid agreement to arbitrate.
• Core provisions of an arbitration clause.
• Further optional provisions to address specific requirements.
• The interaction with other forms of dispute resolution.

To read the rest of this chapter, click here.

The Brave New World of Disputes

May 08 2009

Climate change, energy and the financial crisis will require an array of resolution mechanisms

The National Law Journal, April 14, 2009
By Ian Meredith, Laura Atherton and Marcus M. Birch

Changes to the global landscape during the next two decades are expected to drive a new generation of disputes. Climate change and unprecedented pressure on world resources — including carbon-based energy sources, minerals, food and water — will be among the key structural drivers.

At the same time, the global financial crisis and the rise of state capitalism seem set to provide the catalyst for further financial and economic conflicts.

This new generation of disputes will call for a sophisticated range of dispute resolution mechanisms and may challenge existing structures. Arbitration may be the primary focus for the resolution of natural resource-based conflicts that are commonly both international and technically specialized, but court-based litigation and the consensual alternative dispute resolution also will play key roles.

Read the entire article here at Law.com.

Arbitration of Disputes Arising from the Financial Crisis

Mar 19 2009

By: Clare Tanner & Paul F. Donahue

The current turmoil in financial markets has led to an increase in disputes involving financial institutions. Parties may have entered into transactions in better times with little consideration given to the forum in which future disputes would play out. In today’s far more challenging circumstances, the choice of forum may be central to the satisfactory resolution of disputes.

In some areas, it is common for disputes involving financial institutions to be resolved through arbitration. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest self-regulatory organization, i.e., non-governmental regulator, for all securities firms doing business in the United States. (FINRA’s rulemaking, however, is subject to approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).) Both individual and institutional customers can require a FINRA member to arbitrate disputes. Indeed, most, if not all, securities broker/dealers will refuse to do business with customers who do not agree to arbitrate disputes. Disputes between FINRA members may also be submitted to arbitration.

K&L Gates Arbitration World, March 2009

Mar 15 2009

Arbitration World is an update for clients and contacts on recent developments in international arbitration law and practice.

From the Editors

Welcome to the 8th 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 are pleased to announce the opening on March 2nd of our office in Singapore. This represents our fifth Asia office and 32nd location worldwide, including offices in eight of what many view as the key venues for international arbitration: Paris, London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Beijing, New York, Washington, D.C. and Miami.

We hope you find this edition of Arbitration World of interest, and we welcome any feedback.

Washington Supreme Court Holds the Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply to Safeco Field Construction

Mar 12 2009

Wash. State Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 202 P.3d 924 (Wash. 2009)

The Washington Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Wash. State Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co. that may have far-reaching impact on other public construction projects. In that case, the Court unanimously held the statute of limitations does not apply to claims regarding the construction of Safeco Field brought by the owner, the Washington State Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District (“PFD”), because the construction was for the common good of the state.

At issue were construction defect claims filed by the PFD against its general contractor. The PFD alleged the general contractor failed to follow the intumescent fire protection specification for structural steel members, causing a catastrophic failure of the fire protection. The PFD discovered the defect in 2005, and filed the lawsuit in 2006. This was more than seven years after substantial completion of Safeco Field; the applicable statute of limitations for contract claims is six years. RCW 4.16.040.

The Supreme Court overturned a summary judgment dismissal of the PFD’s claims granted by the trial court, and held that the statute of limitations does not apply. The Court relied on statutory language providing that limitation periods do not apply “to actions brought in the name or for the benefit of the state.” RCW 4.16.160. The majority of the Court’s opinion grapples with the question of whether the PFD brought the construction defect action “for the benefit of the state.”