He Turned Wall Street Offices Into Homes. Now He Vows to Remake New York
February 14, 2023 —
Natalie Wong - BloombergIn the lobby of a downtown Manhattan tower, Nathan Berman pauses to admire the marble walls and terrazzo floors. A real estate developer, he has a taste for old-world detail, like the fur lining in his navy overcoat, accented with a polka-dot scarf. It’s rush hour in the heart of Wall Street, and Berman’s at its white-hot center, 55 Broad St., former offices of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. But, like many buildings in the age of working from home, this onetime hub of capitalism is largely empty. Many of Berman’s rivals would be discouraged. He’s thrilled.
Berman transforms vacant office buildings into top-of-the-line apartments. At 63, he’s the king of office conversion. From the 23rd floor of 55 Broad, Berman can make out five of his projects in the bright December sunlight. They include 20 Broad, a midcentury modern building that had outlived its usefulness as the onetime headquarters of the New York Stock Exchange. Today, along with apartments, it features a rooftop terrace with views of the harbor, a theater, a yoga studio, a game room and a fitness center. Gazing into the distance, Berman points toward another of his alchemies: a former Tribeca bookbindery where Oscar-winning actor Jennifer Lawrence and pop star Harry Styles have owned homes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natalie Wong, Bloomberg
SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection
June 21, 2024 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Kevin W. Jones & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogPart I of this series,
SAFETY Act is Powerful Protection Against Emerging Liabilities, addressed the benefits of obtaining SAFETY Act coverage, including:
- From a reputational perspective, SAFETY Act protection provides benefits even absent a security incident: it demonstrates that a knowledgeable federal agency has examined the relevant technology and determined that it is both safe and effective.
- SAFETY Act protection can benefit companies taking steps to enhance the security of their physical premises and operations, or their cybersecurity defenses, to reduce their potential liability and enhance their reputation.
- Other benefits include—depending on the level of protection—powerful liability protections including exclusive federal jurisdiction and choice of law for the venue where the incident occurred, caps on liability, prohibitions on punitive damages, and government contractor immunity.
This post will explain the levels of protection that a company can seek under the SAFETY Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Kevin W. Jones, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Jones may be contacted at kjones@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement
January 13, 2020 —
Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesIn July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract.
The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret.
The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.”
Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech.
The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding.
In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement.
Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit.
The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms.
Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SEC Proposes Rule Requiring Public Firms to Report Climate Risks
April 11, 2022 —
Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposal March 21—both anticipated and feared—that would require publicly-traded companies to standardize disclosure for the first time of climate-related business risks such as those related to severe weather and decarbonization. Exchange-listed firms would also have to report greenhouse gas emissions, their own and in the supply chain, creating a major reporting mandate. The rules also apply to firms listed on overseas exchanges that operate in the U.S.
Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Florida Supreme Court recently handed down a decision that developers can be held responsible if problems with infrastructure lead to damage to homes. Aaron Kase, writing on Lawyers.com, reviews the case, noting that the court said that “habitability of a home is impacted by stagnant standing water and the erosion of soil upon which the home is constructed. One need not wait until floodwaters inundate the home or the erosion swallows the residential structure to find protection.”
Kase notes that a trial court “sided with the developers’ argument that because the water infrastructure didn’t immediately support the houses, implied warranties of fitness and habitability shouldn’t apply and they shouldn’t be liable.” This was overturned at the district court, with the Supreme Court upholding the district court decision. Lisa Wilcox of Wilcox Law notes that “the Supreme Court determined that the warranty of habitability should be applied to protect home buyers from defects in the construction of these essential services even though they are not part of a home’s completed structure.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters
September 25, 2023 —
Bill Creedon - Construction ExecutiveAccording to the National Fire Protection Association, between 2016 and 2020 an estimated average of 4,300 fires per year plagued structures under construction, adding up to about $376 million in annual property damage. More recently, the National Centers for Environmental Information reported that wildfires accounted for more than $3.2 billion in damages across the United States. These figures alone point to the heightened awareness that all companies—particularly construction companies—should maintain surrounding the unique challenges and risks that wildfires can present and how they could potentially impact the integrity of projects and the associated safety of their workers.
As North America grapples with the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires, hurricanes and additional severe weather events, numerous industries have had to adapt and implement proactive measures to minimize their risks and associated exposures. The impact of these natural disasters on the construction industry is indisputable, necessitating proactive measures that construction companies should seriously consider adopting to effectively mitigate those risks, efficiently navigate insurance complexities and seamlessly integrate data-driven solutions alongside modern tools like AI and predictive modeling.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Creedon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Creedon may be contacted at
bill.creedon@wtwco.com
Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel
February 25, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit determined that the trial court did not err by refusing to give preclusive effect to findings made in the underlying state-court action because there was no collateral estoppel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharif, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2114 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014).
Bashir's owned a grocery and was insured by Nationwide. The decedent was accidentally killed by a pistol stored under the cash register. The decedent's personal representative sued Bashir in state court. Nationwide declined to defend because it maintained that the employment exclusion applied to bar coverage.
The personal representative argued two alternative claims, the first assuming the decedent was not an employee of Bashir's and the second assuming that he was. The state court granted a motion to dismiss the second claim that the decedent was an employee. In a subsequent trial, judgment was awarded against Bashir and another defendant in the amount of $950,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim
January 27, 2010 —
Steven M. CvitanovicIn the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.
In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.
Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
