As discussed in our post from last year, on August 30, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision to compel arbitration between an Alabama steel plant owner, Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC (“OS”), and a French division of General Electric Co, GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS (formerly Converteam SAS). In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that a non-signatory to a contract could not compel arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), as incorporated in Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), through the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Dissatisfied with the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, on February 7, 2019, GE filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and on June 28, 2019, the Court granted the GE’s petition.  In the field of international construction arbitration, where multi-party disputes between owners, contractors, and subcontractors are common and where the rights of non-signatories to compel arbitration are regularly debated, the Supreme Court is slated to provide important guidance.

On June 12, 2019, the World Bank announced that China-based Dongfang Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Dongfang”) would be debarred for fifteen (15) months for fraudulently bidding on a $60 million electrical expansion project in Liberia.  The debarment renders Dongfang, a state-owned enterprise specializing in manufacturing and installing electrical equipment in connection with energy and infrastructure projects, ineligible to participate in any projects financed by the World Bank.  Dongfang’s debarment by the World Bank highlights the compliance risks contractors and subcontractors face when pursuing contracts associated with foreign projects financed by institutions such as the World Bank.

Rad and D’Aprile, Inc. v. Arnell Construction Corp, No. 502464/14, 2019 BL 131606 (NY. Sup. Ct. April 3, 2019)

In June of 2001, Arnell Construction Corp. (“Arnell”) entered into a prime contract to build two sanitation garages in Brooklyn for the New York City Department of Sanitation (the “City”).  Arnell subcontracted the project’s masonry work to Rad and D’Aprile, Inc. (“Rad”).  After execution of the subcontract, Rad was informed that the start of work would be delayed because the City had not yet obtained ownership or access to all portions of the site.  When its work did commence, only limited portions of the site were available.  This caused inefficiencies in Rad’s work and caused it to incur increased costs.

Winger Contr. Co. v. Cargill, Inc., No. 17-1169, 2019 BL 132092 (Iowa Apr. 12, 2019).

On April 12, 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling which held that, inter alia, the Iowa mechanic’s lien statute would not permit the attachment of mechanic’s liens to the property of a lessor in connection with a contract to supply materials and labor to a lessee.

Aquatherm, LLC v. CentiMark Corp, 2019 BL 13240 (D. Utah Apr. 12, 2019)

Stag II Lindon LLC and Stag Industrial Inc. (collectively “Stag”) owned a building in Lindon, Utah.  Stag contracted with CentiMark Corp. (“CentiMark”) to perform work on the building’s roof.  CentiMark’s work required it to manipulate, move, and reinstall existing heating cables on the roof.  Shortly after completion of the work, in March of 2014, a fire occurred on the roof which was traced to the location of heat tape, which CentiMark had removed and replaced.

EnerQuest Oil & Gas, L.L.C. v. Antero Resources Corporation, No. 02-18-000178CV, 2019 BL 130860 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth Apr. 11, 2019)

A Texas appellate court recently found that an out-of-state Oklahoma-based limited liability company was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets claims.

Westfield Ins. Co. v. Weaver Cooke Constr., LLC, 2019 BL 129431 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2019)

This case arises out of the alleged defective construction of a condominium complex in North Carolina.  In 2009, the developer on the project filed suit for the alleged construction defects.  This related coverage lawsuit then ensued between the parties’ insurers regarding a duty to defend the general contractor.

A.E. Rosen Elec. Co. v. Plank, LLC, No. 07862-7, 2019 BL 113951 (Sup. Ct. Mar. 01, 2019)

On March 1, 2019, the Supreme Court of New York, Albany County, granted a subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment on a payment dispute involving a “pay-when-paid” contract provision.

Defendant Plank, LLC (“Contractor”) entered into a construction contract with Dutch Village, LLC (“Owner”) to act as the general contractor for the construction of four apartment buildings (“Project”).  Thereafter, Contractor entered into a subcontract with Plaintiff A.E. Rosen Electrical, Inc. (“Subcontractor”) for electrical work on the Project.  After nine months of work on the Project, a payment dispute arose between the Owner and Contractor.  At that time, Contractor directed the Subcontractor to cease work on the Project.

Bribery and corruption have long plagued the construction industry, particularly in emerging markets in Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. Large contracts often trickle down through layers of subcontractors and consultants, presenting opportunities for corruption at each level. The risk is enhanced in certain foreign jurisdictions where public officials may expect payment in exchange for state-issued licenses or government contracts.

Arco Ingenierosm, S.A. v. CDM Int’l Inc., Civil Action No. 18-12348-PBS, 2019 BL 100779 (D. Mass. Mar. 22, 2019)

In November 2009, Tropical Storm Ida hit El Salvador, causing flooding, landslides, and the destruction of homes, roads, bridges, schools, health clinics, and other infrastructure.  The United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) provided $25 million in funding to rebuild damaged infrastructure.  USAID retained Defendant CDM International Inc. (“CDM”) to conduct studies and assessment for the construction of eight schools and one health clinic (the “Projects”) and to create preliminary designs and technical specifications for these Projects.  These preliminary designs were intended to constitute at least thirty percent of final designs for the Projects.  Relying on the preliminary designs created by CDM, Plaintiff Arco Ingenieros, S.A. de C.V. (“ARCO”) submitted bids to act as the design-build contractor for the Projects.  USAID awarded the Projects to ARCO.