They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?
June 10, 2019 —
Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning.
The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust.
Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stella Pulman, PillsburyMs. Pulman may be contacted at
stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com
Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .
November 30, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsDid you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did.
Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien.
In Prav Lodging, the facts were a bit unusual. The day after the mechanic’s lien was recorded by Synchronized Construction Services, Inc. (“Synchronized”) the construction manager, Paris Development Group, the construction manager and de facto general contractor, went out of business. Despite this fact, and after the lien was bonded off, Synchronized sued to enforce the lien and for breach of contract against Paris. The wrinkle here is that Synchronized was unable to serve several defendants, among them Paris, within one year of filing suit as required by Virginia statute. In the Circuit Court, the financing bank moved to dismiss the suit for failure to serve necessary parties. The Circuit Court dismissed the breach of contract count but refused to dismiss the mechanic’s lien count on this basis.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFA contractor testified in the trial of former Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora. According to Fox 8 in Cleveland, Ohio, Sean Newman, the president of Letter Perfect testified that his company was a subcontractor on the reconstruction of the locker rooms at the Cleveland Browns Stadium. Newman said his company was paid only $400,000 of their $650,000 bid. When Letter Perfect sued the contractor, D.A.S. Construction, Dimora called the judge to influence her to rule in favor of D.A.S.
The judge in the earlier case, Bridgett McCafferty, has been found guilty of lying to the FBI during their investigation and is serving a 14-month prison sentence.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Senate Committee Approves Construction Defect Bill
March 19, 2015 —
Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic WittLate last night, the Colorado Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee voted to refer
SB 15-177 to the committee of the whole. The vote followed nearly seven hours of testimony from those in favor of construction defect legislation and those opposed.
As I have
previously discussed, the bill sponsors have argued that their measure will encourage the construction of more affordable housing by giving builders de facto immunity for claims of defective workmanship and property damage in common interest communities. The bill achieves this by establishing difficult voting and disclosure requirements for homeowner associations and requiring costly, private arbitration of any disputes that can overcome the procedural hurdles. During the recent hearing, proponents echoed these statements and testified that insulating homebuilders from claims would lower home prices and rents by increasing the supply of cheaply-built condominiums.
Opponents questioned whether the bill contained any provisions that would actually help the affordable housing market. They also argued that it was improper for the legislature to shift the cost of fixing construction defects onto those homeowners who can least afford to pay for necessary repairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law FirmMr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com
U.S. Department of Defense Institutes New Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification
July 13, 2020 —
Joseph N. Frost - Peckar & AbramsonContractors doing business with the Federal Government, particularly with the Department of Defense (“DoD”), commonly handle sensitive information that is not intended to be disseminated. Controlled Unclassified Information (“CUI”) is one such type and is more specifically defined as “information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to and consistent with laws, regulations and government-wide policies.”1 Because some DoD contracts require contractors to handle CUI, certain safeguards have been put in place to ensure its security. This article briefly touches on the current cybersecurity protocols, followed by a discussion of the new system being developed by the DoD, and what contractors most need to know about the new system.
The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) has long required contractors to comply with certain cybersecurity standards, as published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”). Specifically, DFARS sought to implement the cybersecurity framework found in NIST Special Publication (“SP”) 800-171, entitled “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations.” NIST SP 800-171 sets forth fourteen (14) families of recommended security requirements for protecting the confidentiality of CUI in nonfederal systems and organizations, including, among others, access control, audit and accountability, incident response, personnel security, and system and information integrity. However, after a series of data breaches, the DoD reassessed the efficacy of the continued use of NIST SP 800-171 and ultimately decided to institute a new methodology to ensure the security of CUI.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph N. Frost, Peckar & AbramsonMr. Frost may be contacted at
jfrost@pecklaw.com
China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop
August 06, 2014 —
Zhang Dingmin - Bloomberg NewsThe biggest immediate risk facing China’s economy is about to get worse.
A reluctance among some developers to sell units at prices lower than they could fetch just months ago threatens to cause a swelling in unsold properties. The worsening glut would extend a slide in construction that’s already put a drag on the world’s second-largest economy, and counter policy makers’ efforts to stimulate the real-estate industry with loosened rules.
In Nanjing, eastern China, nine housing projects originally planned for sale in the first half of 2014 were held for later this year, consulting firm Everyday Network Co. says. The number of homes added to the market in July in 21 major cities dropped 25 percent from June, according to Centaline Group, parent of China’s biggest real-estate brokerage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zhang Dingmin, Bloomberg NewsZhang Dingmin may be contacted at
dzhang14@bloomberg.net
Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
July 14, 2016 —
Ahlers & Cressman PLLC BlogAhlers & Cressman PLLC attorneys have again been recognized as “Super Lawyers” and “Rising Stars” (attorneys under 40 years of age, or practicing under 10 years) in Washington for 2016.
Six Ahlers & Cressman attorneys were recognized as Super Lawyers: John P. Ahlers, Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen, Lawrence S. Glosser, and Brett M. Hill. Additionally, three of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized as Rising Stars: Ryan W. Sternoff, James R. Lynch, and Lindsay K. Taft.
Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a multiphase selection process, involving peer nominations, evaluations, and third-party research. Each attorney candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only five percent of the total lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyer, and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Rising Star.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
