K&L Gates – Construction Law

Third-Party Funding of Construction Disputes: An Overview of Litigation and Arbitration Finance

Oct 13 2016

By Ian Meredith, Benjamin T. Mackinnon, K&L Gates, London

Introduction

Over the last decade, financing for commercial and investor-state arbitration / litigation claims has grown into a significant industry in certain jurisdictions with hundreds of cases now being funded by specialist investment funds (known as ‘third-party funders’). The benefits of third-party funding go well beyond solely the provision of funds to claimants who may otherwise be unable to bring worthy claims, and many commercial parties now use third-party funding as a means of managing risk. The increased availability of third-party funding and the potential to negotiate tailored solutions means that it is now becoming a routine issue for consideration at the outset of disputes and often before they even exist.

Over the course of several articles, we will examine some of the specific issues relevant to determining whether third-party funding is appropriate for your dispute, how best to approach third-party funders, and some of the issues that can arise during the course of a claim being supported by a third-party funder.

This article will provide an overview of third-party funding and highlight why it is becoming increasingly relevant for in-house lawyers dealing with construction disputes. The next articles in the series will examine some of the specific issues that can arise in respect of third-party funding and how best to approach funders.

Preparing for a New Era in the Design and Construction Industry

Apr 26 2016

By Justin L. Weisberg, K&L Gates, Chicago

The construction industry is currently on the precipice of substantial changes impacting all participants involved in the design and construction of modern projects. Economic volatility has resulted in significant pressure on all participants to increase efficiency and deliver projects at reduced costs. New technology, including BIM, is impacting the very responsibilities and interactions of project participants. Over the past decade, environmental and sustainable design considerations have gone from nonexistent to a driving factor in the design and construction of numerous projects.

While Design Bid Build (“DBB”) was historically the leading method of project delivery, progressive methods have made substantial gains over the last decade. Progressive project delivery methods include Design Build (“DB”), Construction Manager at Risk (“CMAR”), and Integrated Project Delivery (“IPD”). These progressive methods take advantage of construction expertise during the design phase of the construction project.

How Are Your Construction Activities Regulated under OSHA’s Final Silica Rule?

Mar 28 2016

By Barry M. Hartman, K&L Gates, Washington, D.C. and Stephen J. Matzura, K&L Gates, Harrisburg

On March 24, 2016, OSHA issued the prepublication version of the final rule regarding occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica, including one standard for the general industry and maritime, and another standard for construction work (“Final Rule”). The rule applicable to construction work will be codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1153. It becomes effective June 23, with compliance obligations beginning at least a year later (June 23, 2017). The more stringent permissible exposure limit (“PEL”) of 50 μg/m³ and the “action level” of 25 μg/m³are the same as in the proposed rule that OSHA issued in 2013.

The Final Rule essentially creates three categories of construction activities that are regulated differently depending on levels of exposure to respirable silica: (1) activities excluded from regulation; (2) activities listed in Table 1 that are afforded a “safe harbor” from the requirement to conduct an exposure assessment; and (3) activities that require an exposure assessment. Any employers that perform “construction work” – which may also include employers outside of the construction industry – must consider where their activities fall within the construction standard for silica.

Allocating and Managing Risk in Major Rail Projects: International Railway Summit 2016

Mar 14 2016

Nicola Ellis, Special Counsel in the London office, recently presented at the International Railway Summit 2016 in Vienna. The International Railway Summit provides a meeting ground for senior decision makers from the world’s key rail operators, transport ministries and solution providers.

K&L Gates served as the Legal Sponsor for the annual event.

Nicola’s presentation covered the common risks which should be carefully considered at the outset of procuring a major rail projects. To view a copy of Nicola’s presentation titled “Allocating and Managing Risk in Major Rail Projects,” please click here.

Implementing Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Germany

Mar 07 2016

By Christoph Mank, K&L Gates, Berlin

In recent years, numerous issues have accumulated in connection with the realisation of large building projects planned and financed by the public sector, such as the new international airport in Berlin, the Elb-Philharmonie in Hamburg and the Stuttgart 21 train station project. In particular, issues included delays, huge cost increases and communicating the projects and the attendant problems affecting the public. The ensuing discussions in the German public triggered the formation of a reform commission by the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur), called “Bau von Großprojekten” or “Large-Scale Construction Projects”. One recommendation in the reform commission’s final report is that Building Information Modelling (BIM) should be implemented in Germany.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Holds that Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Shield Design Professionals from Liability for Faulty Information Implicitly Represented in Design Documents

Feb 29 2016

By Michael P. Cotton, K&L Gates, Pittsburgh

In its July 8, 2015 opinion, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that design professionals are potentially subject to liability for negligent misrepresentation claims when it is alleged that their design documents negligently included false information via implicit representations. Gongloff Contracting, L.L.C. v. L. Robert Kimball & Associates, Architects & Engineers, Inc., 119 A.3d 1070 (Pa. Super. 2015). In so doing, the Superior Court clarified the scope of Section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and found that the Section does not require a design professional to make an explicit negligent misrepresentation of a specific fact for a third party to recover economic damages.

Suspension and Termination Under the Civil Law, Part 2

Feb 22 2016

By Alex Brightman, K&L Gates, Doha and Donal Scott, K&L Gates, Dubai

In a previous blog post, we looked at suspension and termination of a construction contract under a Civil Code system. We focused, in particular, on the FIDIC form of contract and looked at how that would be treated under the Qatar Civil Code.

In this article, we will continue that review, but look at how suspension and termination would operate under the UAE Civil Code.

FIDIC Update: Termination and the Employer’s Obligations under the Red Book

Feb 10 2016

By Mike R. Stewart, Mary E. Lindsay, and Nita Mistry, K&L Gates, London

A Privy Council case last year provided some important guidance on the provisions in the FIDIC Red Book in relation to Employer’s financial arrangements and claims. Whatever your perspective might be, when negotiating or managing a contract based on the FIDIC Books, employers and contractors should be aware of the Privy Council’s findings in NH International (Caribbean) Ltd v National Insurance Property Development Company Ltd (Trinidad and Tobago) [2015] UKPC 37.

The Contract
National Insurance Property Development Company Ltd (Trinidad and Tobago), the Employer, employed NH International (Caribbean) Ltd, the Contractor, to construct a hospital in Tobago under a contract in the form of the FIDIC Red Book.

On 2 November 2006, the Contractor terminated the contract pursuant to Clause 16.2. The Employer did not agree the termination was valid but the parties proceeded as if the contract had been terminated. A number of issues arose during the Engineer’s assessment of the work to the date of termination and these matters, including the validity of the termination, were referred to arbitration.

The arbitrator’s decisions in relation to Clauses 2.4 and 2.5 and Clause 16.1 were later appealed first to the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Tobago and then to the Privy Council.

Personal Property Securities and the Construction Industry

Jan 21 2016

By Belinda Montgomery, Leonard McCarthy and Sandra Steele, K&L Gates, Sydney

It seems hard to believe but come 30 January 2016, the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) and the register it established will have been operating for 4 years. The PPSA has introduced far reaching conceptual and practical changes to Australian law. If you are part of the construction industry, to protect your rights, you need to ensure that any registerable interests are registered on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR).

Washington Court of Appeals Confirms Enforceability of Termination-for-Convenience Clauses and Holds that Implied Covenant of Good Faith Places No Limits on Express Termination-for-Convenience Clauses

Jan 14 2016

By D.C. Wolf, Brad Lewis, and Jesse O. Franklin, K&L Gates, Seattle

The contract law concept of a “termination for convenience” allows one contracting party to terminate a contract that has become inconvenient or unnecessary and settle with the terminated party for partial performance. The doctrine originated during the U.S. Civil War to give the Union government flexibility when quickly changing battlefield conditions rendered a planned project or procurement overly costly or no longer necessary.[1]

In its recent decision in SAK & Associates, Inc. v. Ferguson Construction, Inc., No. 72258-1-1, 2015 WL 4726912 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2015), the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, given very limited existing authority, clarified that partial performance of a construction project is sufficient consideration to support a termination-for-convenience clause and rejected the argument that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing limits a party’s ability to invoke such a clause.

Tag:K&L Gates