Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

On the Ten Year Anniversary of the JOBS Act A Look-Back at the Development of Crowdfunding

May 02, 2022 — J. Kyle Janecek & Jeffrey M. Dennis - Newmeyer Dillion
Last month marked the ten-year anniversary of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012. On May 16, 2016, Title III of the JOBS Act was enacted, as the final piece of the JOBS Act, which gave businesses better access to crowdfunding tactics due to the ability to raise funds based on equity. Today, the JOBS Act and the impact of equity crowdfunding more generally has grown among multiple industries, from entertainment and technology to real estate and construction, and has come a long way from the non-equity crowdfunding of Kickstarter and Indiegogo. So what have been the powers that businesses gained from Title III of the JOBS Act? What has been the impact of the last ten years? Where do businesses go from here to better utilize this source of funding? WHAT ARE THE CROWDFUNDING POWERS GIVEN BY THE JOBS ACT? The main difference and change that the JOBS Act had on the field of "crowdfunding" was that for the first time, unaccredited investors could obtain equity stakes in businesses through online solicitations. However, a business was still required to go through the proper approved channels, like accredited crowdfunding portals to solicit and receive funding. Prior to this, crowdfunding had gotten more of an impact and reputation from platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, platforms that benefitted creative works or could act as a "pre-order" system with no guaranty of performance or quality of goods by the party seeking funds. Reprinted courtesy of J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

January 31, 2014 — Tariq Panja and David Biller – Bloomberg
Brazilian authorities announced 5.6 billion reais ($2.3 billion) will be spent on infrastructure directly related to the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games and those costs will rise as projects are added. Yesterday’s announcement comes months behind schedule, and after pressure on public bodies to reveal exactly how much it will cost for Rio to be the first South American city to host the quadrennial showpiece. Delays and cost overruns to several projects related to this year’s soccer World Cup have sharpened the focus on the Olympics. “We are committed to being on schedule,” Sports Minister Aldo Rebelo said at a press conference in Rio to announce the spending plans. “It is the first time we have a consortium of three levels of government. It is in an effort to ensure the success and execution of all the commitments to deliver the Olympics in Rio in 2016.” Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net and Mr. Biller may be contacted at dbiller1@bloomberg.net. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja and David Biller, Bloomberg

Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

July 01, 2014 — Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr. – Bloomberg
New York’s cities and towns can block hydraulic fracturing within their borders, the state’s highest court ruled, dealing a blow to an industry awaiting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision on whether to lift a six-year-old statewide moratorium. The case, closely watched by the energy industry, may invigorate local challenges to fracking in other states and convince the industry to stay out of New York even if Cuomo allows drilling. Pennsylvania’s highest court issued a similar ruling last year, striking down portions of a state law limiting localities’ ability to regulate drillers. “This sends a really strong and clear message to the gas companies who have tried to buy their way into the state that these community concerns have to be addressed,” Katherine Nadeau, policy director for Environmental Advocates of New York, an anti-fracking group, said in a phone interview. “This will empower more communities nationwide.” Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net; Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net; and Mr. Efstathiou Jr. may be contacted at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr., Bloomberg

A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

November 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed teaming agreements in this past here at Construction Law Musings. These agreements are most typically where one of two entities meets a contracting requirement but may not have the capacity to fulfill a contract on its own so brings in another entity to assist. However, these agreements are contracts and are treated as such here in Virginia with all of the law of contracts behind them. One illustrative case occurred here in Virginia and was decided by the Virginia Supreme Court. That case is CGI Fed. Inc. v. FCi Fed. Inc. While this is not strictly a “construction” case, it helps lay out some of the pitfalls of teaming agreements in general. In this case, the parties entered into a fairly typical small business (FCI) Big Business (CGI) teaming arrangement for the processing of visas for the State Department. The parties negotiated the workshare percentage (read payment percentage) should FCI get the work and the teaming agreement set out a framework for the negotiation of a subcontract between FCI, the proposed general contractor, and CGI, the proposed subcontractor. After a while working together, FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department and as part of the negotiations of this proposal, the work percentage for CGI was lowered in exchange for some management positions for CGI relative to the work by amendment to the original teaming agreement. However, one day later FCI submitted a proposal to the State Department that not only didn’t include the management positions, but further lowered CGI’s workshare. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

June 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The 2015 Hawaii legislative session passed three insurance-related bills which have all been signed by the governor. Bills that have been enacted are the following: SB0589 - We previously devoted this post to the legislation. The bill provides relief for residents in lava zones on the Big Island. The bill limits the number of property policies that an insurer can refuse to renew in a lava zone. Further, a moratorium on the issuance of policies can be lifted in a state of emergency due to the threat of imminent disaster from a lava flow. SB0736 - Provisions relating to reimbursement for accident and health or sickness insurance benefits are amended. Further, the bill provides that prior to initiating any recoupment or offset demand efforts, an entity must send a written notice to the health care provider at least 30 days prior to engaging in recoupment or offset efforts. An entity may not initiate recoupment or offset efforts more than 18 months after the initial claim payment was received by the health care provider or health care entity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

June 29, 2020 — Jacob W. Scott - Smith Currie
On June 5, 2020, the President signed into law the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020, amending portions of the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Most importantly, the PPP Flexibility Act adjusted the forgiveness requirements for PPP loans. The CARES Act allowed borrowers to apply for forgiveness of loan amounts used for payroll and other covered costs during an eight-week period beginning on the date of origination, or by June 30, 2020, whichever came first. The CARES Act also allowed borrowers to use the loan funds by June 30 to restore employee and payroll levels that had been reduced as a result of COVID-19. The Small Business Administration instructed borrowers that at least 75% of the loan funds had to be used to cover payroll costs during the covered period to be eligible for forgiveness. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jacob W. Scott, Smith Currie
Mr. Scott may be contacted at jwscott@smithcurrie.com

Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

March 28, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
In prior versions of the General Conditions, if a contractor defaulted and the Owner (after giving notice) opted to cure by carrying out the work itself, an appropriate Change Order would be issued. However, a Change Order is a contract that requires an agreement by both the Owner and Contractor, and, obviously, Contractors were reluctant to agree that they were in default and responsible for a deductive change order. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

August 04, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES