SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes
November 08, 2021 —
Karen C. Bennett & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (October 13, 2021) - In late September 2021, the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Sample Letter providing guidance to companies on how their climate disclosures will be analyzed for compliance with material risk reporting obligations. The Sample Letter precedes the SEC’s issuance of mandatory climate-related disclosure rules anticipated by year-end and signals a greater focus on specific information used to support securities filings, a development that businesses should take seriously.
The Sample Letter builds on climate change guidance the SEC issued in 2010 and identifies nine categories of disclosures the SEC suggests may be material risks that must be disclosed. These include:
- Consistency between a company’s corporate social responsibility report and its SEC filings;
- Risks associated with climate-related legislation, regulation, or policy, and resulting compliance costs;
- Litigation risks related to climate change; and
- Risks linked to an array of operational and market factors, including capital expenditures, continuity of business operations, supply chain stability, changing demand, reputation, availability of credit and insurance, and other climate-change related potential impacts on the financial condition of the company.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois and
Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff
May 24, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn the next case, Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. 60 Cal.App.5th 1078 (2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a $7 million personal injury verdict against an asbestos-cement pipe manufacturer despite exculpatory testimony from the plaintiff, holding that the testimony was an issue of witness credibility rather than sufficiency of the evidence, and holding that the trial court’s denial of a jury instruction requested by the pipe manufacturer was appropriate because, while the requested jury instruction was a recitation of undisputed facts, the purpose of jury instructions is to recite the law rather than facts, even undisputed ones.
The Morgan Case
Norris Morgan was exposed to asbestos at construction sites where he worked in the 1970s and 80s. After he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2017, Morgan and his wife sued a number of defendants, including J-M Manufacturing for personal injuries and loss of consortium.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate
November 23, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesTeaming agreements are practical and useful agreements on public projects where a prime contractor teams with a subcontractor for purposes of submitting a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation. The prime contractor and subcontractor work together to pursue that solicitation and have the government award the contract to the prime contractor. The teaming agreement allows for information to be confidentially shared (estimating and pricing, construction methodologies, systems, and suggestions, value engineering, etc.) where the subcontractor agrees that it will only pursue the solicitation with the prime contractor. In other words, the subcontractor ideally is not going to submit pricing to another prime contractor proposing or bidding on the same project and is not going to share information the prime contractor has furnished to it. Likewise, the prime contractor is not going to use the subcontractor’s information for purposes of finding another subcontractor at a lower price and is agreeing to use its good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract with the subcontractor if it is awarded the project. This is all memorialized in the teaming agreement.
The potential problem lies with language that requires the parties to use their good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract if the project is awarded to the prime contractor. In essence, this can become a disfavored “agreement to agree” to a future contract that could allow either party to create an argument to back out of the deal under the auspice that they could not come to terms with the subcontract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFABC 7 reported that more than a dozen homes in Adams County, Colorado were inspected and approved by Building and Safety despite being built too close together. The problem was discovered by an inspector who cited a new home for being “4 inches too close to adjoining property.” Jim Williamette, the Adams County Chief Building Official told ABC 7, “It’s a fire issue for the separation of buildings.”
The county may have solved the issue, according to ABC 7. Williamette stated that the properties “will be modified with fire-resistant windows” and combined with the “already-installed fire-resistant siding, the windows will satisfy the international building code.” Currently, the parties are in verbal agreement, and a “signed design proposal” is expected no later than January 21st.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions
July 27, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. A155691, filed 5/22/20 ord. pub. 6/8/20), a California appeals court held that triable issues of fact and the trial court’s failure to address a request for a continuance precluded summary judgment for an insurer under the genuine dispute doctrine.
In Fadeeff, the policyholders made a claim to State Farm for smoke damage to their home from the 2015 Valley Fire in Hidden Valley Lake, California. With State Farm’s approval, the insureds retained the restoration company, ServPro, to assist with smoke and soot mitigation. State Farm documented smoke and soot on the interior walls, ceilings and carpeting, and on all exterior elevations, including on the deck and handrail. State Farm made a series of payments on the claim totaling about $50,000.
The insureds then hired a public adjuster and submitted supplemental claims for further dwelling repairs and additional contents replacement, totaling approximately $75,000. State Farm responded by using its own independent adjuster to investigate, who was neither licensed as an adjuster, nor as a contractor. State Farm also retained forensic consultants for the structure and the HVAC system, but neither the independent adjuster nor the consultants were aware that State Farm had an internal operation guide for the use of third-party experts in handling first party claims, which guidelines were therefore not followed. In addition, the consultants made allegedly superficial inspections, with one attributing smoke and soot damage to other sources of combustion, including the insureds’ exterior propane barbecue, an internal wood fireplace and wood stove and candles that had been burned in the living room. None of the consultants asked the insureds when they had last used any of the sources of combustion.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law
September 24, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis, & Kristian Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties.
Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney.
In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Yvette Davis and
Kristian Moriarty
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning
April 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn a one billion dollar lawsuit, U.S. Navy sailors contend that they “suffered massive doses of radiation” from the Fukushima Dia-ichi nuclear power plant in Toyko, Japan while stationed on the USS Ronald Reagan, reported the Orange County Register. A tsunami (caused by a 9.0 earthquake) flooded the plant, “cutting off electrical power and disabling backup generators.” The USS Reagan was sent to provide aid, but the plant then “blew up” before they arrived.
“Sailors on the flight deck said they felt a warm gust of air, followed by a sudden snow storm: radioactive steam,” according to the Orange County Register. “Freezing in the cold Pacific air. Blanketing their ship.”
However, the Orange County Register posed the question, “Could the Reagan – one of the most advanced nuclear aircraft carriers in the U.S. fleet – really not know that it was being showered with massive doses of radiation?” TEPCO, the company being sued by the sailors, answered that it’s “wholly implausible.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove
May 02, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOne of the most challenging claims to prove is a lost productivity or inefficiency claim. There is an alluring appeal to these claims because there are oftentimes intriguing facts and high damages. But the allure of the presentation of the claim does not compensate for the actual burden of proof in proving the lost productivity or inefficiency claim, which will require an expert. And they really are challenging to prove.
Don’t take it from me. A recent Federal Claims Court opinion, Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, (Fed.Cl. 2022), that I also discussed in the preceding
article, exemplifies this point.
To determine lost productivity or inefficiency, the claimant’s expert tried three different methodologies.
First, the expert looked at industry standard lost productivity factors such as those promulgated by the Mechanical Contractor’s Association. However, the claimant was not a mechanical contractor and there is a bunch of subjectivity involved when using these factors. The expert decided not to use such industry standard factors correctly noting they provide value when you are looking at a potential impact prospectively, but once you incur actual damages and have real data, it is not an accurate measure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
