Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports
August 04, 2021 —
Joshua A. Morehouse - ConsensusDocsWhen bidding a project, subsurface or latent site conditions that are not immediately apparent can massively impact the costs of performance to general contractors. Were contractors required to bid on projects without any information on pre-existing conditions, they would need either to be assured that any additional costs would be reimbursed by the owner, or to include significant contingencies for subsurface conditions in their bids. For owners, these options result in either increased risk or increased cost—neither of which is particularly palatable. Owners therefore implement several contractual tools to minimize these risks and costs.
One of these tools is providing bidders with a report on latent conditions, often called a “geotechnical data report” or “GDR”, but otherwise shifting as much of the subsurface-related risk as possible to the contractor. In theory, these reports permit contractors to appropriately adjust their contingencies for latent conditions, thus saving owners money. However, several independent and thorny issues arise where site reports provided by the owner are either inconsistent with or silent on the actual conditions of a project site. Hence owners often include disclaimers with these reports, such as noting that the report is for “informational purposes only” or that the report is “not part of the contract documents."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at
jmorehouse@pecklaw.com
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
November 15, 2017 —
Jeff Dennis & Ivo Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPThe European Union (“EU”) has enacted a strict, comprehensive framework of security regulations aimed to protect its citizens. These regulations, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), provide a blueprint for a combination of required legal, technological and work habits within an organization. Although this is an EU regulation, the new laws will apply to any organization within or outside the EU that collects or processes data of EU citizens. Therefore, U.S. companies must analyze their data and processes to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary. A quickly-approaching deadline of May 25, 2018 must be met to avoid massive fines.
What is the GDPR?
In order to address the creation of social networking sites, cloud computing, and location-based services, the EU set in motion a process to implement a vigorous set of rules to ensure the right to personal data protection for all European citizens. In April 2016 the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission adopted a new GDPR, which will take affect on May 25, 2018.
This GDPR will streamline cooperation between the data protection authorities on personal data issues allowing companies to deal with one authority - not each of the 28 EU member states. This will allow for quicker decisions by the data protection authorities and greatly reduce the red tape in both compliance and enforcement under the GDPR. This will also create a level playing field by forcing non-EU companies to comply with the same strict regulations - regardless of whether or not the company is established in the EU.
Territorial scope of the GDPR
The GDPR applies directly to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU - regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU. Additionally, there are specific provisions under the GDPR that apply to non-EU companies if their processing activities relate to (a) the offering of goods or services (irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required) or (b) monitoring the behavior of individuals within the EU. Therefore, all companies must determine whether they process or monitor information of EU citizens. If a company falls within one of these categories, compliance with the GDPR is mandatory.
What happens if a company fails to comply with the GDPR?
Failure to comply with the GDPR could subject a company to crushing administrative fines.
The supervisory authority has the power to impose administrative fines under the GDPR. The following violations and breaches would subject a company to administrative fines:
- Not adhering to the core principles of processing personal data,
- Breach of notification to EU citizens by controllers and processors,
- Wrongful transfer of personal data to non-EU countries,
- Breach of obligations regarding certification,
- Ignoring the mandates asserted by the supervisory authority,
- Breach by those responsible for impact assessment, and
- Wrongful processing of employee data.
The extent of the violation and type of personal data involved will dictate the severity of the administrative fines imposed on a company. For example, under the GDPR, a company could be subject to administrative fines up to 20,000,000 EUR, or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual revenue of the preceding financial year. Obviously, these fines would be financially crippling to any company.
Preparing for May 25, 2018
The May 25, 2018 deadline is fast approaching and preparing for full compliance with the GDPR is paramount. Simple steps should be taken to ensure compliance including to:
(1) Review and analyze data repositories for sensitive data,
(2) Perform an analysis/accounting of procedure for data collection, and
(3) Create an oversite committee dedicated to data activities and compliance.
Most importantly, however, is to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary, and strictly follow the requirements of the GDPR to protect from potentially massive fines.
Jeffrey M. Dennis currently serves as Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner and as a business leader, advises his clients on cybersecurity related issues, introducing contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. You can reach Jeff at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. His practice includes representing private and public companies with both their transactional and litigation needs. You can reach Ivo at ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
Break out the Neon: ‘80s Era Davis-Bacon “Prevailing Wage” Definition Restored in DOL Final Rule
August 21, 2023 —
A. Scott Hecker & Ted North - The Construction SeytOn August 8, 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
announced its
final rule related to the Davis-Bacon Act (the “Act”), entitled “Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations.” However, the official final rule must be published in the Federal Register – likely by week’s end – before going into effect 60 days after publication.
DOL issued its notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) in March 2022 and received more than 40,000 comments from interested stakeholders. Evaluating and addressing those comments took the better part of a year, as DOL did not send the rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) for White House approval until December 16, 2022. After languishing for months, OIRA has now concluded its review, allowing DOL to move forward with its final rule.
Reprinted courtesy of
A. Scott Hecker, Seyfarth and
Ted North, Seyfarth
Mr. Hecker may be contacted at shecker@seyfarth.com
Mr. North may be contacted at enorth@seyfarth.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ethical Limits on Preparing a Witness for Deposition or Trial
October 28, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverIn this week’s blog post, we are going to take a brief look at ethical issues associated with preparing a witness for a deposition or to testify at trial. Most attorneys would agree that it is permissible to meet with a witness before the witness’s deposition to discuss what to expect. On the other hand, there is no question that advising a witness to provide false testimony would be improper. But what about the area in between those two extremes? For instance, can an attorney suggest to a witness how to phrase answers to anticipated questions that, while true, might not be the way the witness would have answered the question absent the attorney’s coaching?
A little over a year ago, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued ABA Formal Opinion 508: The Ethics of Witness Preparation. The opinion provides certain examples of things that are and are not permissible in preparing a witness for a deposition or trial.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose
June 22, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationAs previously reported, SB 20-138, “Concerning Increased Consumer Protection for Homeowners Seeking Relief for Construction Defects,” would have extended the Colorado statute of repose applicable to construction defect claims. Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would have:
- Extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
- Required tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
- Permitted statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
When a Construction Lender Steps into the Shoes of the Developer, the Door is Open for Claims by the General Contractor
February 18, 2015 —
Kevin Brodehl – California Construction Law BlogThank you to my partner Garret Murai for giving me the opportunity to post again on his excellent California Construction Law Blog. I am the author/editor of the Money and Dirt Blog, where I focus on issues relating to real estate investment, development, and secured lending.
On the
Money and Dirt Blog, I recently posted an
article on an interesting new secured lending opinion from the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District in Riverside), California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti. That blog post focused on guaranty liability, and the court’s holding that there are limits to the defenses that a guarantor can lawfully waive.
But that same decision also highlights valuable lessons regarding the relationship between construction lenders and general contractors in distressed projects, which I’ll cover here. In short, the court held that when a construction lender “steps into the shoes” of the developer to manage a distressed project, the lender might open the door to liability to the general contractor under theories of breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Brodehl, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Bordehl may be contacted at
kbrodehl@wendel.com
Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void
February 18, 2015 —
Krsto Mijanovic and Annette F. Mijanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Ram, et al. v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al. (filed 2/6/15, No. A139055), the California Court of Appeal held that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is not void merely because the notice of default was recorded by an entity who had not yet been substituted as trustee. The court also held that because the sale was voidable, rather than void, the plaintiffs were required to allege an ability and willingness to tender their debt in addition to alleging that they were prejudiced by the irregularity in the foreclosure process.
Plaintiffs were borrowers who purchased a home subject to a deed of trust. After they defaulted on their loan, nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated, and the beneficiary of the deed of trust, OneWest Bank, FSB ("OneWest"), purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs sued OneWest and other entities for wrongful foreclosure, alleging that the sale was void because the entity identified as the trustee on the notice of default, Aztec Foreclosure Corporation ("Aztec"), had not been formally substituted as trustee until after the notice of default was recorded. The trial court sustained OneWest's demurrer and plaintiff appealed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Annette F. Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits
September 03, 2014 —
David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins – BloombergHalliburton Co. agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a majority of lawsuits brought over its role in the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
The agreement is subject to court approval and includes legal fees, the Houston-based company said in a statement today. Halliburton was accused by spill victims and BP Plc of doing defective cementing work on the Macondo well before the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Halliburton blamed the incident on decisions by BP, which owned the well.
The settlement comes as the judge overseeing oil-spill cases weighs fault for the disaster. An agreement now averts the company’s risk of a more costly judgment for some spill victims and removes much of the uncertainty that has plagued Halliburton for the past four years as investors waited to see the payout tally. With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide.
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists
David Wethe,
Margaret Cronin Fisk and
Laurel Calkins
Mr. Wethe may be contacted at dwethe@bloomberg.net; Ms. Fisk may be contacted at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; and Ms. Calkins may be contacted at lcalkins@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
