admin – Page 10 – Construction Law

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.

New Jersey Appellate Court Holds That Coverage Exists for Consequential Damages Caused By Subcontractors’ Defective Work

Nov 23 2015

By Denise N. Yasinow, Loly G. Tor, and Christopher A. Barbarisi, K&L Gates, Newark

This past summer, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division issued a favorable decision for owners, real estate developers, and general contractors regarding insurance coverage for damages caused by the faulty work of their subcontractors. In Cypress Point Condominium Association, Inc. v. Adria Towers, LLC,[1] the Court held that unexpected and unintended consequential damages caused by a subcontractor’s defective work constitutes “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy. Thus, these types of consequential damages are recoverable.

The Cypress Point decision roundly rejected the Third Circuit’s opinion in Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Parkshore Development Corp.,[2] which concluded that faulty workmanship performed by a contractor or a subcontractor that causes damage to the general contractor’s work is not an “occurrence.”

Materials Available: EPC Contracting Issues in the Oil & Gas Industry

Nov 11 2015

K&L Gates and Marsh recently co-sponsored a one-day, complimentary seminar titled “EPC Contracting Issues in the Oil & Gas Industry.”

The seminar featured six hour-long sessions, including a luncheon presentation by Robert Peterson, senior partner at Oliver Wyman, and an industry roundtable review panel consisting of industry experts from Exxon Mobil, Phillips 66, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Fluor, and Aker Solutions.

More than 100 representatives from leading energy companies attended the seminar at the JW Marriott Houston Downtown.

Houston partners Randel Young and John Sullivan III, Pittsburgh partners Richard Paciaroni and Jason Richey, London partner Matthew Smith, Washington, D.C. partner Steven Sparling, and Dallas partner Beth Petronio, along with Pittsburgh associate Jackie Celender, presented during the seminar.

Seminar materials can be found here.

Materials Available: 2015 Legal Update – Construction and Engineering Seminar

Oct 29 2015

On 7 October 2015, the K&L Gates London office held a 2015 Legal Update – Construction and Engineering breakfast seminar. The seminar featured the following topics:

CDM 2015: The End of the Transition – Nicola Ellis, Special Counsel
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 came into force on 6 April. This session highlights the key changes that were introduced, the practical effects of those changes and the consequences of the transitional provisions coming to an end on 6 October.
Construction Law Update – Inga Hall, Special Counsel
A summary of some of the recent key construction and engineering cases that have come before the courts, and the implications of those decisions.
The NEC3 Suite: Beyond the ECC – Matthew Smith, Partner
This session looks at the true range of options the NEC3 suite of contracts offers and gives an insight into which issues are addressed consistently across the suite, and highlights the key differences between specific forms.

To view a copy of the materials from this seminar, please click here.

Update on Legal Advice Privilege

Oct 22 2015

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

In common law jurisdictions, legal professional privilege prevents communications between a professional legal adviser and their clients from being disclosed. There are two main types of privilege:

Legal advice privilege, which protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients; and
Litigation privilege, which protects confidential communications, provided that such communications have been created for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice for litigation.

Illinois Now Allows Bonding Off of Mechanics Liens on Private Projects

Oct 15 2015

By Jesse G. Shallcross, K&L Gates, Chicago

On July 29, 2015, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law an amendment to the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act which allows a property owner, contractor or other party with an interest in real property which is subject to a mechanics lien claim filed against the property by an aggrieved contractor, subcontractor or material supplier on a private project to substitute a surety bond for such mechanics lien claim.[1] The new law is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2016.

Illinois now joins the ranks of no less than 35 other states that provide for the right of an interested party to substitute a surety bond for real property against which a mechanics lien claim is filed, also known as “bonding off” a mechanics lien claim, on private projects.

A New Australian Standard (AS 11000) to Replace the General Conditions of Contract (AS 4000 and AS 2124)

Oct 08 2015

By Sandra Steele, K&L Gates, Sydney

The AS 4000 and AS 2124 General Conditions of Contract are widely used forms of procurement in the Australian construction industry. A technical committee has recently drafted a new standard form contract (AS 11000) to supersede these previous forms.

The drafters have sought to provide a balanced approach to risk allocation and have updated the standards for certain legislative changes and case law including for GST and security of payment legislation. Despite the extensive amendments, as the AS 11000 is drafted as a national standard form contract, some State and Territory specific legislation and case law has not been included.

Harris v. West Bay Builders: Award of Attorney’s Fees Not Mandatory Under California Prompt Payment Statutes

Oct 01 2015

By Timothy L. Pierce and Hector H. Espinosa, K&L Gates, Los Angeles

California’s prompt payment statutes, found at Business and Professions Code section 7108.5 and Public Contract Code sections 7107 and 10262.5, each contain a fee-shifting provision, stating that the prevailing party “shall” be entitled to his or her attorney’s fees and costs. In James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc. (No. C072169), the California Court of Appeals confirmed that a trial court can, in its discretion, choose not to award either party attorney’s fees under the prompt payment statutes if the trial court determines that neither party “prevailed.”

FTR v. Rio: Penalties Assessed Against School District for Withholding Contractor Funds

Sep 24 2015

By Timothy L. Pierce and Benjamin Kussman, K&L Gates, Los Angeles

In East West Bank v. Rio School District, 235 Cal. App. 4th 742 (2015), the California Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s assessment of $1,537,404.96 in statutory penalties against the Rio School District (the “District”) for the District’s failure to timely release contractor funds pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7107. The Court concluded, in what constitutes a departure from another recent Court of Appeals ruling interpreting the same statutory provision[1], that Section 7101 does not allow a public entity to withhold contractor retainage on the basis of a dispute over the cost of contract work.

Author:admin