Construction Law Review is an update and discussion of current trends in construction law
Bean Sprouts LLC v. LifeCycle Construction Servs. LLC, No. 001268-CV-2021 (Pa. Super. Feb. 17, 2022)
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently raised the bar for state courts to assert jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in actions brought by residents arising from out-of-state projects.
Construction and Energy Practices Honored With National Awards
Law360 has named two Troutman Pepper practices among its Practice Groups of the Year for 2021. The firm achieved the national recognition for both its Construction and Energy practices. According to Law360, 91 firms submitted nearly 900 nominations for the awards, which “honor the law firms behind the litigation wins and major deals that resonated throughout the legal industry in the past year.”
Construction Group of the Year
“We are excited to be recognized nationally for our work in the construction space,” said Mike Subak, who leads the firm’s Construction Practice Group. “Our team advises industry leaders on both their largest projects as well as their day-to-day details, and the work is incredibly rewarding.” Continue Reading Law360 Recognizes Troutman Pepper Practices as 2021 Practice Groups of the Year
Originally published on International Bar Association. Republished here with permission.
On 1 March 2021, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), the international division of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and a leading provider of dispute resolution services to businesses in matters involving cross-border transactions released the 2021 update to its international arbitration and mediation rules (the ‘2021 ICDR Rules’).1 The 2021 update marks the first time the ICDR’s arbitration rules and mediation rules have been revised since 2014 and 2008, respectively, and is of particular note to the construction industry both in the United States and elsewhere. Continue Reading Arbitration Update – The 2021 ICDR Arbitration Rules: A Welcome Update for International Construction Arbitration
This article summarizes the current landscape in Pennsylvania and California as COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, and highlights important considerations for employers in the construction industry in relation to vaccines and navigating a post-mask mandate world.
This article was originally published in The Dispute Resolver. It is republished here with permission.
On March 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would consider the hotly contested issue of whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (“Section 1782“) grants parties to international commercial arbitrations seated outside the United States the right to seek U.S.-style discovery from the federal courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC will ostensibly put to rest a matter that has roiled the international arbitration community for the last several years and may have profound implications for modern international arbitration practice.
Given the role international arbitration serves in connection with international construction projects, construction practitioners and industry representatives should pay close attention to the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision. The following article seeks to introduce the current debate to construction practitioners and offer some insight into what the Supreme Court’s decision may mean for the field of international construction arbitration.
This article was published in Mealey’s International Arbitration Report – March 2021. Copyright 2021, LexisNexis. All rights reserved. It is reprinted here with permission.
On February 15, 2021, the International Bar Association (IBA) released the long-awaited 2020 update to its highly influential Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (“IBA Rules”). Known for their flexibility and practical blend of common law and civil law traditions, the IBA Rules have come to reflect the most common practices in international arbitration proceedings over the past two decades. The 2020 update is important because, prior to the 2020 update, the IBA Rules had only been revised once, in 2010, after first being formalized in 1999. As a result, given the prevalence of the IBA Rules, the 2020 update is likely to remain the benchmark standard for international arbitration practice for the next decade.
Continue Reading 2020 Updated to the IBA Rules: Modest Changes for Challenges New and Old
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the construction industry, and many countries continue to implement new or more stringent restrictions on entry into their borders. Those travel restrictions can impact any company with cross-border supply chains or employee travel. This article addresses some of the travel restrictions in place in the United States, Canada, and members of the European Union (EU); exceptions to those requirements; and some best practices when navigating across borders. Continue Reading COVID-19 and Border Crossings: Considerations and Best Practices for Global Constructors and Suppliers Crossing US, Canadian, and European Borders
Published in Law360 on February 25, 2021. Reprinted here with permission.
On Feb. 15, the International Bar Association released the long-awaited update, adopted by the IBA Council on Dec. 17, 2020, to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration.[1]
First formalized in 1999, the IBA rules have become the most widely accepted set of guidelines for international arbitration proceedings. Known for their flexibility, practicality, and blend of common law and civil law practices, the IBA rules are commonly used to fill in the procedural gaps left by arbitral rules and represent basic norms that parties have come to expect from international arbitration. Continue Reading Int’l Arbitration Rules Revision Reflects Flexible Approach
Albert Bates and Zachary Torres-Fowler were quoted in a Q&A for Mealey’s International Arbitration Report titled, “International Arbitration Experts Discuss the New LCIA Rules.” Continue Reading International Arbitration Experts Discuss the New LCIA Rules
The Army Corps of Engineers denied a construction permit for Alaska’s Pebble Mine project to proceed in accordance with the Clean Water Act (CWA).[1] Excavation of Pebble Mine — a sprawling depository of gold, copper, and molybdenum — would discharge fill material and dredge into U.S. waterways.
The project’s developers applied for a permit under the CWA, requiring the Army Corps to assess the project’s potential impact on nearby bodies of water. When project-produced dredge and fill threaten unavoidable adverse impacts on waterways, projects may not proceed without appropriate mitigation measures. Continue Reading Another Major Project Halted Under the Clean Water Act
