Articles Posted in Construction Generally

Posted

California Assembly Bill 428 (Nazarian) proposes to allow, for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2016, and before January 1, 2021, a tax credit in an amount equal to 30% of the qualified costs paid or incurred by a qualified taxpayer for seismic retrofit construction on a qualified building. The tax credit could be claimed at the rate of 1/5th of the credit amount for the taxable year in which the credit is allowed and 1/5th of the credit amount for each of the subsequent 4 taxable years (reduced by any grant provided by a public entity for the seismic retrofit construction); as applicable, an excess credit may be carried over to the reduce the net tax in the following taxable year. Prior to seismic retrofit construction, the taxpayer would be required to obtain certification from the appropriate jurisdiction with local building code enforcement authority that the building has been certified as an at-risk property. The taxpayer would also be required to obtain a certification that the seismic retrofit construction had been completed, and to provide both certifications to the Franchise Tax Board upon request. The bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Continue Reading ›

Posted

Recently, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed into law House Bill 46, new law that amends the provisions relating to unauthorized and excessive claims of preconstruction and construction liens. For those parties who agree to arbitrate claims for a residential project or for $50,000 or less, H.B. 46 amends Section 38-1a-308 of the Utah Code to add Subdivisions (b)(4) through (15), which create procedures to initiate, conduct, and appeal an arbitration proceeding to resolve a claim for an excessive notice of preconstruction or construction lien.
Continue Reading ›

Posted

Today, Pillsbury attorneys Mark Jones and Kathleen Bardunias, and summer associate Kevin Lin, published their client alert SEC Proposes Pay-for-Performance Disclosure Rules. The Advisory discusses the SEC’s recently proposed rule under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that would require public companies to disclose the relationship between the compensation actually paid to certain key executives and the financial performance of the company, as measured by total shareholder return. If the proposed rule is finalized during 2015, affected companies may be required to make the “pay-for-performance” disclosures as early as the 2016 proxy season.

Posted

Recently, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe signed into law Senate Bill 891, new law effective July 1, 2015. S.B. 891 adds Section 11-4.1:1 to the Virginia Code and amends Subdivision (C) of Section 43-3 of the Virginia Code to prohibit the waiver of payment bond claims or contract claims, and the waiver of the right to file or enforce any mechanics’ lien by subcontractors, lower-tier subcontractors and material suppliers in construction contracts.
Continue Reading ›

Posted

A version of our article titled Surviving the Storm originally appeared in a Bay Area Council publication in the March 2015. It discusses Superstorm Sandy’s sobering preview of the types of insurance and risk management issues that business and residents face given the prospects of a catastrophic storm.

Posted

On May 12, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia partially granted a request for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement on new Interior Department rules which are intended, under the Department’s reading of the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 42, to prohibit the interstate transportation of listed “injurious species”; the species in this matter are the Reticulated Python and the Green Anaconda. These species are raised and sold in commerce, but if they escape, they can become dangerous predators. The case is United States Association of Reptile Keepers, Inc., v. Jewell. Although the case make be about snakes, it serves as a reminder that a public agency is not permitted to exceed its authority when promulgating rules.
Continue Reading ›

Posted

On April 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued another unanimous ruling holding that the right to judicial review is a fundamental tenet of administrative law. The case is Mach Mining, LLC, v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and involves the right to challenge the conciliation proceedings of the EEOC in employment discrimination matters. Reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Court ruled that “the strong presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action” applies to the informal conciliation procedures used by the Commission in attempting to resolve these disputes, and accordingly rejected the holding of the appeals court that the statutory directive in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to attempt conciliation is not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court concluded its opinion by stating that, “Judicial review of administrative action is the norm in our legal system, and nothing in Title VII withdraws the courts’ authority to determine whether the EEOC has fulfilled its duty to attempt conciliation of claims”.
Continue Reading ›

Posted

The Nevada State Contractors Board anticipates that more than 100 of the state’s leading contractors are expected to attend the Nevada State Contractors Board’s third annual “Training Day” this summer in Reno and Las Vegas. The intensive day-long seminar, scheduled to occur on August 6 will bring together experts in various fields to help Nevada contractors to improve their business operations and processes. The training seminars will held concurrently in Reno at 5400 Mill Street and in Las Vegas in the Clark County Building Department located at 4701 West Russell Road. Past contractor Training Days have featured experts on marketing, business development, finance, capital budgeting, building codes, Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, contractor regulation and more.

Additional Source: Nevada State Contractors Board, Horizons (May 2015)

Posted

The Cal/OSHA standards, located at Title 8 Cal. Code of Regs.§§ 1532.1, 5198, 5194, change how employers are required to notify their employees about potential lead hazards. Employers are required to inform their employees about potential lead hazards with work area signs and labels for lead-contaminated equipment and clothing that specifically include language about lead’s danger to the central nervous system and reproductive health. Employers must comply with the new labeling rules by June 2015 and new signage rules by June 2016. Cal/OSHA has made available downloadable and printable Lead Warning Signs in English and Spanish and Lead Warning Labels in English and Spanish, and provided tips on posting the signs and using the labels.

Additional Sources: California Department of Public Health, For Employers – Lead Warning Signs and Labels; California Department of Public Health Winter 2015 Newsletter; CSLB Spring 2015 Newsletter, Employers Must Use Cal/OSHA’s New Lead Warning Signs

Posted

In its 2015 Spring Newsletter, the California Contractors State License Board in its article titled Away From a Construction Site? Leave Contact Info with Your Crew encouraging project supervisors and prime contractors to leave a business card with their employees in case a member of California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force (LETF), which includes the CSLB, Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and Employment Development Department, drops by the project. During a drop-by visit, the LETF investigator is trying to identify the company, contractor license number and a telephone number where a responsible party can be reached so that the investigator can confirm that all licensing, workers’ compensation insurance, employment, and safety laws are being followed. If there is no one in able to answer these questions, the investigator must make a return visit to the project. The CSLB reported in its newsletter that, in 2014, LETF conducted 613 inspections of active job sites and, 84% of the time, the project was not in compliance with state license, labor, tax, health, safety, or insurance regulations.