Blog

sba logo

Government Shutdown Affected Contractors Relying on SBA Programs

In its fourth week, the government shutdown that started on December 21, 2018, has had a profound impact on the U.S. economy. Going down in history as the longest shutdown, it has paralyzed whole sectors because federal institutions are closed or are functioning at limited capacity. J.P. Morgan estimated that the losses account to $1.5 billion for every week of the standoff between President Trump and the Congress. As in other force majeure situations, small businesses feel the effects of the administrative blockage the most. For thousands of companies, the last few weeks have been tough due to financial losses and missed business opportunities. Among the numerous federal departments and agencies that have been affected by the shutdown, the Small Business Administration has been closed since December 22. This has strong negative effects for companies using its 7A Guaranteed Lending Program and 504 Loan Program, as well as its Surety Bond Program. The SBA typically approves around $500 million in loans per week. Businesses relying on these programs have not been able to benefit from them in the last month since federal employees at the SBA are furloughed. Since the close, the SBA is not processing loans. This has delayed more than $2 million in lending that was supposed to finance real estate deals, equipment purchases, and other development needs. The result for impacted businesses is a limbo in which they risk losing down payments and deposits. The effect is especially distressing for companies that sought SBA Express loans for immediate financing needs. Many of them have made initial payments for a commercial property and are now awaiting the SBA loan that was supposed to finance the purchase. As sellers are becoming impatient, companies are forced to look for other ways to cope with the situation. They have to either put on the line their payment or seek flexibility and understanding from the seller, which is not guaranteed. Some businesses have increased the deposits for their dreamed real estate with the hope to appease property owners and prolong the period in which they can wait for the SBA financing. For others, the most viable option has been to seek financing from other sources, as not to lose the opportunities and already made investments. As the Washington Post reports, the situation is especially tough for small business owners who were on the finishing line of buying property when the shutdown started. Such is the case of computer specialist Brooks Troxler who had to receive a $550,000 SBA loan for a real estate deal. If the delay continues, he may lose not only the possibility to have a new business location, but also a lot of money invested in fees, appraisals and other administrative costs. Construction businesses relying on the SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program have also been heavily affected by the shutdown. Contractors often have to provide contract surety bonds when they bid on public and private projects. The bonding is typically required on federal contracts, as well as on many other public ones. However, for many new and small businesses, obtaining the necessary bonding is difficult or impossible because of financial issues or lack of required experience in the field. The Program helps contractors by guaranteeing for their bonding in front of surety providers. It supports contractors with guarantees on individual contracts of up to $6.5 million. This can be increased to $10 million in some cases. In recent weeks, contractors have not been able to obtain support from the SBA. As a result, they cannot get the required surety bonds, as sureties are reluctant to extend backing to applicants that pose a higher risk. This has left many budding construction companies out of the bidding on projects. The repercussions for small contractors are the most serious, since winning a contract can be decisive for their development. How has the government shutdown affected your small business? What steps have you taken to mitigate its effects? Please share your thoughts in the comments below. https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/news/12440873/government-shutdown-affected-contractors-relying-on-sba-programs

Government Shutdown Affected Contractors Relying on SBA Programs Read More »

Surety partially finances concrete contractor’s settlement [Liberty Mutual]

Navillus Settles Into Normal Business Life After One-Year Bankruptcy Trouble appears to be over between Navillus, one of New York City’s biggest contractors, and five building trades unions. Navillus sought bankruptcy protection 14 months ago after a federal judge ordered it to pay $76 million to union pension and benefit funds. The unions, with which the contractor had agreements, successfully sued the company in 2014. They claimed Navillus violated federal pension law, collective bargaining agreements and commitment to work union through two separate nonunion companies, one of which had ties to Navillus’ owner and president, Donal O’Sullivan. After the judge’s payment order, the unions attempted to freeze all Navillus’ bank accounts through restraining notices. Navillus, which performs much concrete construction as both prime contractor and subcontractor, steadfastly claims in a statement that it “never operated a non-union company and consistently disputes any allegations that they did.” The parties to both the civil lawsuit by the unions and the contractor’s bankruptcy used mediation to reach a settlement and vacate the judgement and decision against Navillus. So far, union officials have not commented publicly. One reason that unions may have agreed to take only $25 million—about one third of what a lower federal court had originally ordered Navillus to pay in 2017—might be explained by the words of a U.S. federal appeals court judge who vacated the order after Navillus’ appeal. “This will keep one of New York City’s largest construction contractors in business,” wrote Judge Colleen McMahon. ‘It will protect dozens of ongoing projects from disruption, preserve numerous union jobs and provide continuing benefit to the plaintiff funds, and all of Navillus’ stakeholders.” Navillus says it kept working on its projects, including two prominent Manhattan towers for which it was constructing concrete frames before emerging from Chapter 11 [of the federal bankruptcy code] last October. The uninterrupted effort “was a testament to the belief and trust that clients have in Navillus,” the company said. Since the settlement, Navillus has been adding steadily to its backlog. Bankruptcy made sense for the contractor considering the judgment “One of the advantages of Chapter 11,” the company said in a statement, ‘is that it offered additional remedies, all of which have their own merits, to resolve issues in the field that wouldn’t normally have been available to Navillus.” O’Sullivan’s main concern through the turmoil was the company’s employees and hundreds of union workers, the company’s statement said. Navillus also indicated it was proud to continue in business as one of New York City’s biggest union employers—no small thing at a time when building trades unions are fighting to maintain their stature in the city. The regional building trades council, except for the carpenters’ union, is battling one of the city’s biggest developers, The Related Cos., over the next phase of its Hudson Yards project. Related wants to bargain with the unions on a one-on-one basis. And several unions in recent years have adopted what is essentially is a tiered wage system—another concession to their eroding bargaining power and market share. Quick Financing in Bankruptcy Loans to operate are often critical if a company is to survive bankruptcy. They must be arranged quickly. “Showing that sophisticated lenders have examined the debtor’s finances and believe in the debtor’s ability to repay its post-petition obligations … goes a long way” to quell worries about the debtor’s ability to continue, wrote attorney Paul H. Zumbro in a recent book about such lending But that is not exactly what played out, according to Navillus. The company said it was almost able to finance all of its own operations while in bankruptcy. Although the contractor’s surety, Liberty Mutual, provided a $20-million debtor-in-possession financial facility at a 3 percent interest rate, with no default rate and no fees, none of the DIP loan was used. After the DIP loan ended and Navillus emerged from bankruptcy, Liberty Mutual partially financed the settlement. Only a small number of Navillus creditors were forced to take reduced payments, the company also stated. As with other bankruptcies and litigation, the per-hour legal and consulting expenses needed to go through the processes were high, court records show. And Navillus is back in federal court, this time as a plaintiff seeking in new lawsuits several million dollars from several of the city’s biggest general contractors and New York City’s Dept. of Environmental Protection. The contractor claims in some of the lawsuits that the prime contractors and DEP are improperly withholding retained funds held back when it filed for bankruptcy protection. Other lawsuits began before the bankruptcy filing. Founded in 1987 as Navillus Tile, the company branched out from tile and masonry to concrete and has been a force in the city. At the time of the bankruptcy, the company had 640 union employees and 65 management-level staff. According to Navillus’ attorney’s statements to the bankruptcy judge, the company had an average annual gross income of $180 million, but 2016 gross income of $240 million. Its current cash and marketable securities at the time equaled $20.8 million, $12.2 million of which was cash. Its receivables were $55.3 million and it owed $13 million. Portions and details of this story were corrected Jan. 11 to show that no financing from surety Liberty Mutual is currently needed by Navillus and that only a small amount was used after Navillus’ bankruptcy. Corrections also clarified other aspects of the bankruptcy and civil lawsuit claim and settlement and the financial details about Navillus prior to the bankruptcy. https://www.enr.com/articles/46199-navillus-settles-into-normal-business-life-after-one-year-bankruptcy

Surety partially finances concrete contractor’s settlement [Liberty Mutual] Read More »

Automation to transform commercial insurance: survey

Automation is set to transform commercial insurance lines with investments in this field expected to increase, particularly affecting the property business, according to a survey including 300 commercial insurers conducted by Intelligent Insurer. https://www.intelligentinsurer.com/news/automation-to-transform-commercial-insurance-survey-17437

Automation to transform commercial insurance: survey Read More »

Ten Minutes with Travelers’ Gregg Lyon

The strategy chief for surety construction services talks about having the right people to prevent failures ENR recently exchanged email questions and answers with Gregg Lyon, chief strategy officer for Bond Construction Services, Strategic Initiatives and Product Management at Travelers. A graduate of Babson College, he has worked 28 years for the company in various underwriting and surety related posts. With a volatile stock market, interest rates slowly creeping higher and talk of an inevitable economic slowdown, the discussion revolved around contractor failure. Lyon talked about whether there’s anything new that can sink a construction contractor and what the best wisdom is for staying out of trouble. The questions came from ENR Deputy Editor Richard Korman. ENR What aspects of the economy or financial market performance are of most concern for Travelers’ surety and contractor clients? Lyon No surprise, but the biggest concern for our clients remains people. There continue to be headwinds to get enough of the right, qualified people to meet future business plans. The loss of people to other industries, the very low overall unemployment rate, and the lack of enough new people coming into construction will continue to present some significant business challenges to construction company owners. The issue second to people is public spending. The current environment is inconsistent in how it’s impacting our clients, with our heavy civil clients feeling the hurt much more than our general contractors. The private sector spending has been elevated the past few years, which has been good for our GC’s, but the lack of progress in overall public spending has made it hard for many firms, especially heavy/civil, to plan appropriately for their business. What are some of the most common reasons behind contractor failure / construction surety claims? We certainly are seeing common threads. We’ve been doing an annual review internally since 2009 where we look at our top 10 losses and do a deep dive to see what caused these clients to fail or default. Over those nine years, factors that have been big contributors to contractor failure include a problem on a project that ends up being too big, internal cost system failures, overextension and excessive debt. Tell us more about the problems and how they develop. The biggest thing we’re seeing is that one project or one bad decision can take a company down. More often than not, it’s a company taking on a job that’s a lot bigger than they’ve ever taken on before, working for an owner they haven’t worked for before or doing types of work they haven’t done much of before. Taking on a job that’s too far away from their area of expertise or doing a bigger job in a different location for a different owner can be a recipe for disaster. We all know that contractors are optimistic by nature. They know they can figure it out, but one thing we’re finding is that sometimes big problems can become too big to resolve. The best protection would be a healthy balance sheet or lots of cash? A good balance sheet certainly helps weather a storm, but even good balance sheets can get blown up with the wrong job. It’s become clear that every decision a company makes can have a material impact on its future. What’s the blueprint then for staying out of trouble? Is there one? A lot of companies do things really well, such as having good processes in place: who signs off on the decision to go after a job, who reviews the contracts, who makes the go/no-go decision. If you’re doing something a little bigger or different, you want to dig deeper, review the contract terms, look at the cash flow on the job, ensure the margin on the job fits the level of risk, and make sure that the risk-reward is in line with the overall risk appetite of the company. I think you’re talking about overextension in a lot of the mistakes you mentioned, right? Yes, overextension, especially when you’re maxing out your organization. That can mean from a cash flow standpoint or from a personnel standpoint. One thing I would tell contractors is to constantly assess their organization and know its strengths and weaknesses, know what its capacity is – and this is not a one-and-done process, it should be done on a frequent basis. That assessment should always start with people. Do you have the right people in the right places to handle the work you want to take on? Do they have the skill sets needed to carry that work out successfully? If you have the right people in place, coupled with the financial wherewithal to support your future needs, then the chances for success improve tremendously. What steps can companies take to improve their chances for long-term success? Thoughtful strategic planning is a good place to start. It’s not going to happen by chance. Try to come up with a good, solid strategic plan at least once a year, and then revisit that plan multiple times throughout the year. The key is to not put it in a bottom drawer somewhere and forget about it for a year or two. Rather, it should be used as a working document. Sureties and bond producers get very involved with their contractor clients and their businesses. You’ve told me that Travelers reviews bids and contracts, does accounting reviews and offers consultations and conferences. That’s a lot. Does every bonded contractor of Travelers get them or must they be purchased as add-ons? That is a lot. Our contractor clients have high expectations as to what they get out of their surety relationship, as they should. As a surety, we have a unique vantage point into the inner workings of thousands of construction firms, and we believe we can help our contractors be better at what they do every day if we pass on that knowledge. Ultimately, this benefits the client, our agent partners, and ourselves. This is why we spend so

Ten Minutes with Travelers’ Gregg Lyon Read More »

How subrogated claim leads to landmark win for Guarantee

A $1.9-million surety bond claim has resulted in a landmark court decision in favour of The Guarantee Company of North America. A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. went bankrupt in 2014. At that time it was a contractor on four road-paving projects in Ontario. As a result of A-1 Asphalt’s bankruptcy, the Guarantee Company paid out nearly $1.9 million on surety bond claims. Some property and casualty insurers – the Guarantee, among them – write labour and material payment bonds. Those are intended to compensate subcontractors and suppliers if a general contractor fails to pay them what it owes. In 2014, A-1 had three projects with the City of Hamilton and another with the Town of Halton Hills. Those municipalities owed A-1 more than $675,000. They handed that money over to a court-appointed receiver. Normally when a company goes bankrupt, a receiver is appointed to take the company’s assets and pay it out to creditors. A-1’s creditors include the Royal Bank of Canada. Meanwhile, The Guarantee is subrogating the claim it paid out on the bonds. This means, in essence, that the Guarantee wants to recover as much of the $1.9 million as it can from A-1’s assets. The federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act stipulates that the property of a bankrupt company cannot be divided among creditors if that property is held in trust for another person. The $675,000 paid by Hamilton and Halton Hills should be considered a trust, The Guarantee argued in court. Royal Bank essentially wanted the $675,000 to be available to be distributed to all of A-1’s creditors and not set aside specifically for construction workers and subcontractors on the paving projects. This would mean the Guarantee could get some of that money, but so could other creditors, on a pro-rated basis. Initially The Guarantee lost. In Royal Bank of Canada v. A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd., an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling released in January, 2018, Judge Barbara Conway ruled in favour of RBC. Conway was not convinced that the money paid by the municipalities to the receiver was in fact a trust and therefore excluded from A-1’s property to be distributed to creditors under bankruptcy proceedings. Her ruling was overturned in The Guarantee Company of Canada v. Royal Bank of Canada, a unanimous ruling by five judges released Jan. 14, 2019. Ontario’s Construction Lien Act stipulates that money owed to construction contractors and subcontractors constitute “a trust fund for the benefit of the subcontractors and other persons who have supplied services or materials” and are owed money. That law has the effect of altering priorities (of which creditors are paid first) in a bankruptcy proceeding, RBC argued. But the Court of Appeal for Ontario suggested that the Construction Lien Act is not an attempt by the Ontario to indirectly re-order priorities in a bankruptcy proceeding. A trust under the Construction Lien Act “must be seen as an integral part of the scheme of holdbacks, liens and trusts, designed to protect the rights and interests of those engaged in the construction industry and to avoid the unjust enrichment of those higher up the construction pyramid. That purpose exists outside the bankruptcy context,” Judge Robert Sharpe of the Court of Appeal for Ontario wrote in The Guarantee. https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/subrogation-of-surety-claim-leads-to-court-battle-1004150931/

How subrogated claim leads to landmark win for Guarantee Read More »

Construction firms forced to take risks and go for ‘home runs’

As the construction industry in Canada becomes more prone to legal disputes, the need for robust construction insurance policies and surety bonding is growing critical in tandem. Insurance and bonding both play vital roles in ensuring both public and private construction projects are completed on time and on budget – two things rarely achieved by construction firms today. There are lots of issues that challenge the construction industry and contribute to project delays and over-expenditure. Like many sectors, the industry faces an impending wave of baby boomer retirements and a potential workforce shortage or gap as a result. It’s also contending with NAFTA tariff uncertainties, insecure revenue streams (building and repairing infrastructure isn’t cheap), and, of course, construction firms are up against the Canadian weather. At the height of a harsh Canadian winter, infrastructure wears out quickly and can be costly to repair and maintain. Other current construction trends include a tendency to amalgamate design processes with construction, and a push from Canadian municipalities to bulk construction projects together – both of which require construction firms to take on more risk, according to Scott Gilmour, partner at the newly-formed, construction-focused insurance brokerage, APEX Surety & Insurance Ltd (APEX). He told Insurance Business: “We’re seeing an increasing number of construction projects where some of the design is being passed along to the actual contractors. This is good in many ways because the contractors tend to be the experts in their fields – a roofer knows roofing better than everyone else and a plumber knows plumbing, etc. At the same time, adding that to your scope also means construction firms are having to take on some additional risk. If the design’s incorrect or faulty, they could suddenly find themselves facing significant liabilities. “Beyond that, there’s been a push lately by municipalities to bulk construction projects together. Whereas projects used to be tendered one at a time, giving firms a chance to bid for projects in isolation, now a lot of projects are being tendered in packages. As construction projects grow in size, there’s more opportunity for delays and budgetary issues. Suddenly, instead of trying to hit a single, construction firms are having to hit a home run – and the complexity of that task makes it more risky.” As the complexities in the construction industry grow, companies are turning to their insurance partners – brokers and carriers – for more tailored support. This is why Gilmour and four other partners decided to set up APEX, which they claim is Winnipeg’s first insurance brokerage with a specialized focus on surety and the construction industry. Together, the five partners offer a combined 60-years of experience in construction-specific insurance, with backgrounds in law, accounting, banking and construction management. “In the past decade, lots of construction risks have been placed through programs or bulk purchasing arrangements,” Gilmour commented. “At APEX, we want to provide a more bespoke, custom approach to each client, regardless of their size. When we looked at the brokerage landscape in Winnipeg and Western Canada, we felt there was room for an additional entrant that was more focused on construction and surety. The Prairie provinces have some of the fastest-growing economies in Canada and they’ve seen some significant infrastructure projects in recent years, including the Keeyask dam project in Northern Manitoba and the oil and gas pipeline projects in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It’s an excellent market for the construction industry and for construction insurance as a side.” https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/ca/news/construction/construction-firms-forced-to-take-risks-and-go-for-home-runs-121950.aspx

Construction firms forced to take risks and go for ‘home runs’ Read More »

Insurance company files lawsuit against Horry Co. Schools, others claiming nearly $3M owed for work [Selective]

CONWAY, SC (WBTW) – An insurance company has filed a lawsuit against Horry County Schools and others alleging they haven’t been paid nearly $3 million for work on schools. The lawsuit was filed by Selective Insurance Company of America on Monday, the lawsuit says. Horry County Schools, MetCon Construction, Inc., Firstfloor Energy Positive, LLC, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and others are listed as defendants. Horry County Schools reportedly entered into five separate construction contracts with FirstFloor Energy Positive to build schools, according to the lawsuit. Selective Insurance alleges that when the construction scheduled was increased to complete schools on time, the changes impacted Hester Drywall, the drywall company that reportedly worked on the schools, and they eventually went out of business. Selective Insurance also says they took over after the drywall company went into default and provided replacement crews to finish schools and supplies for the work. “Selective, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Hester-Selective Indemnity Agreements, is the acknowledged and recognized successor and beneficiary of any such sums which were owed to Hester Drywall for work performed for or on its behalf pre-default and for which one or more of the Defendants have heretofore failed to timely provide to Hester Drywall pre-default and which is still owed as of the date of the filing hereof.” Selective Insurance is asking for about $792,000 they say is due for their work after Hester Drywall left the project as well as nearly $2.7 million in services they say was completed before the drywall company left. The insurance company also claims in the lawsuit they haven’t been paid as of the date the lawsuit was filed. “One or more of the Defendants is/are all negligently, willfully, wantonly, intentionally, and wrongfully withholding the said funds they are separately and/or collectively holding from Selective even though they know or reasonably should know those funds are due.” The lawsuit also states First Floor Energy Positive issued bonds to pay for projects at the following schools: Carolina Forest Middle School for about $45 million, Socastee Middle School for about $43 million, Socastee Elementary School for about $37 million, St. James Intermediate School for about $47 million, and Myrtle Beach Middle School for about $46 million. There are 14 causes of action listed in the lawsuit including: Declaratory Judgment Action Against All Of The Defendants Constructive Trust Against All Of The Defendants Surety Bond Claim Against All Defendants – HCSD-Firstfloor Energy Construction Contracts Surety Bond Claim Against All Defendants – Firstfloor Energy-Metcon/TA Loving Construction Contracts Breach of Contract – Pay Applications – Against Metcon-TA Loving, MetCon, TA Loving, and Firstfloor Energy Positiv Unjust Enrichment Against All Of The Defendants Equitable Accounting Against All Defendants https://www.wbtw.com/news/grand-strand/insurance-company-files-lawsuit-against-horry-co-schools-others-claiming-nearly-3m-owed-for-work/1694057617

Insurance company files lawsuit against Horry Co. Schools, others claiming nearly $3M owed for work [Selective] Read More »

Washburn Tech East sets up temporary classrooms at Antioch Family Life Center [Hartford]

While physical construction on the new Washburn Tech East campus is at a standstill, educational offerings will start as scheduled Jan. 7 at a temporary location, officials announced Monday. The Antioch Family Life Center, 1921 S.E. Indiana Ave., will host classrooms until construction is complete on Washburn Tech East, 2014 S.E. Washington St. “We wanted to do everything we could to fulfill the promise we made that we would start in January,” Washburn University president Jerry Farley said during a news conference in front of the Antioch center. In September, Champion Builders was declared in default on its construction contract to build Washburn Tech East. Since then, no work has been done on the project as the bonding company, The Hartford, searched for a new contractor. Farley indicated work could resume soon. “I’ve been advised today that there are a couple of little details left, and our target now is to get work underway again by the end of this week,” he said. “If that can occur, we should be able to take possession of the building in the first few days of May. “A lot of people have worked really hard to get the project back on track.” In the meantime, all programs and classes scheduled for early next year at Washburn Tech East will be offered at the temporary location, which is just north of the construction site. Programs will include building technology, health aid, commercial truck driving and GED classes, along with English as a second language courses. “To East Topeka, what this means is that [Washburn] is keeping their word to the community that they’re going to supply education over here on this side,” said The Rev. T.D. Hicks, pastor of Antioch Missionary Baptist Church. “They didn’t allow this obstacle to stop them from going forward.” When officials broke ground in March on the East Topeka Learning Center, which is home to Washburn Tech East, Farley called the project “a dream for a number of people for many, many years.” Despite the recent challenges, Farley said officials remained committed to turning the dream into reality. “We want to make this a great success,” Farley said. “It’s going to depend on all of us to make sure that students come to this center, because if we don’t have students, we’re not going to have people to go fill jobs that we know are waiting out there. “I’ve heard so many times how many jobs are available now in this area, and we want to make sure we can help as many people into those jobs with qualifications that will make them wonderful employees.” Hicks also announced Monday a collaboration with the YMCA to provide child care at the facility. “One of the goals we have at the life center is to remove all excuses, and we know that child care is an excuse for individuals to say they can’t go back to school,” Hicks said. YMCA president and CEO John Mugler said the organization will offer full-day day care at Antioch, starting with a nursery. “And we’re really excited about the opportunity for a summer camp to add to the four locations we already have,” he added. Washburn Tech East is a partnership with Washburn Tech, GO Topeka and the Joint Economic Development Organization. Once completed, the 11,000-square-foot facility will provide space for up to 400 students per year. Prospective students can call (785) 670-2200 for more information. Financial aid and scholarships are available to qualifying students. https://www.cjonline.com/sports/20181217/washburn-tech-east-sets-up-temporary-classrooms-at-antioch-family-life-center

Washburn Tech East sets up temporary classrooms at Antioch Family Life Center [Hartford] Read More »

Surety Disputes AECOM Hunt’s Claim on Austin Hotel Subcontractor Default [Liberty Mutual]

Partial termination and proper notice is contested Lawsuits are nothing new in construction insurance or surety, but some of them have novel twists. Such as a partial termination of a subcontractor by a prime contractor. And a countersuit by a surety against a contractor. One recent project had both. Hunt Construction Group, now known as AECOM Hunt, has tried unsuccessfully to tap a performance bond for a mechanical subcontractor that Hunt replaced in 2016 on the new, 37-story Fairmont Austin Hotel in Austin. Liberty Mutual refused the claim, Hunt sued in April 2017 in federal court in Austin and Liberty Mutual countersued. However, Liberty Mutual’s countersuit failed to muster in court, with a federal judge in Texas ruling against the surety. The countersuit ran afoul of Texas law, noted Justice Andrew Austin, because state laws prohibit a surety from bringing a breach-of-contract suit against the would-be bond beneficiary. Austin ruled that Liberty Mutual’s argument that Hunt had breached the performance bond contract was a “logical impossibility.” As a beneficiary of the bond, Hunt had no obligation to Liberty Mutual, so there could be no breach of contract. In addition, language in the bond contract itself prohibited Liberty Mutual from suing Hunt, Austin noted in this decision. “A party that takes on no affirmative obligations under an agreement obviously cannot be sued for breach of the agreement—it is logically impossible for a party to breach a contract that imposes no obligations on that party,” Austin wrote. “This conclusion makes even more sense here, where Liberty concedes that it has not paid one cent to anyone under the performance bond.” However, the collapse of Liberty Mutual’s countersuit in federal court is just the latest chapter in a spirited, 18-month legal battle. Austin’s largest hotel opened in March after a series of delays related to a dispute between Hunt and one of its key contractors, Cobb Mechanical Contractors. Cobb was in charge of installing the plumbing and mechanical systems in the new luxury tower when Hunt pulled it from part of the job in Nov. 2016. Hunt argued the subcontractor had not been able to hire enough workers, causing delays, and that Cobb’s work was subpar. Hunt hired a replacement sub and filed a $27-million lawsuit against Cobb seeking damages. The contractor has also named Liberty Mutual, which refused to pay out under the performance bond, as a defendant on the suit. However, in a counterclaim filed in federal court, Liberty Mutual contended Hunt violated a number of conditions of the performance bond inked in August 2015, including unilaterally hiring a new subcontractor to complete Cobb’s work. Liberty Mutual issued a subcontract performance bond agreement, naming Cobb Mechanical Contractors the principal and Hunt as the obligee, meaning it would receive the money in case of a default by Cobb on the nearly $31-million subcontract. Under the bond agreement, Hunt was required to declare Cobb in default and give Liberty Mutual an opportunity to remedy the default, lawyers for the surety argued in a federal court filing. This included making available to Liberty Mutual the “balance of the subcontract price.” Failing to Provide Proper Notice of Default Instead, Liberty Mutual argued, Hunt improperly declared a “partial termination” – which took Cobb off one part of the project and kept it on another – and failed to provide a “proper notice of default and opportunity to cure to the subcontractor.” “The Surety (Liberty) has suffered and continues to suffer substantial damages as a direct result of this material breach of Hunt’s obligations under the Bond,” attorneys for the Boston-based surety wrote. In a statement, Cobb Mechanical dismissed Hunt’s allegations about its performance and said it “looks forward to pursuing its counterclaim to full recovery in federal court.” “AECOM Hunt’s choice to partially terminate Cobb from the smaller portion of the project was entirely wrongful, wasteful and unproductive,” the company stated. https://www.enr.com/articles/45875-surety-disputes-aecom-hunts-claim-on-austin-hotel-subcontractor-default

Surety Disputes AECOM Hunt’s Claim on Austin Hotel Subcontractor Default [Liberty Mutual] Read More »

Could surety bonds have saved Carillion’s customers from millions in financial loss?

One key lesson from Carillion’s demise is that risk mitigation tools may not provide the level of protection that contractors may need but the answer may be found in surety bonds When the UK’s second largest construction company declared insolvency on 15 January 2018 it sent shockwaves throughout the industry, with an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 subcontractors and other suppliers owed approximately £1 billion ($1.4 billion). It is understood the company started losing money on some of its more prestigious contracts and ran up significant debt in order to offset these losses. Analysts argue the company overreached and took on too many risky contracts as it fought to stay afloat. And eventually the losses, payment delays and debts caught up with Carillion. In 2017 it issued three profit warnings within a span of five months and wrote off over £1 billion on its contracts, making it even more difficult to manage and service its debts. Even the announcement the firm had been awarded the £1.4 billion HS2 contract was not enough to halt its demise. “It was a big hit to the sector but with hindsight it didn’t necessarily come as a huge surprise,” says Tomas Zapletal, head of UK surety at Swiss Re Corporate Solutions. “When you’re extending payment terms to your suppliers and your creditors for no valid reason that’s a warning sign that this company is perhaps under pressure.” As the fallout continues, the insolvency has highlighted the many pressures that main contractors are under. While insolvency within the largest UK contractors was not as big an issue during the financial crisis as some had predicted, Carillion shows many of the inherent difficulties remain. According to analysis by Construction News, conditions have deteriorated over the past 12 months “lending weight to fears that Carillion’s collapse is unlikely to be the last among the UK’s biggest firms”. “It’s not easy to be a main contractor working for demanding customers, and at the same time managing the supply chain and the subcontractors,” thinks Zapletal. “In a market that’s quite competitive the margins gets squeezed to such an extent that there isn’t much headroom for companies like that to manoeuvre.” Carillion has also drawn attention to the importance of surety bonds when it comes to protecting governments, private owners and lenders from contractor defaults. “If you’re looking to build a new prison, hospital or motorway you want to make sure that the contractor that you appoint will be there to complete the project, be that next year or five years down the line,” says Zapletal. “It’s a risk governments face when they appoint private sector companies and it’s important for them to be prepared for defaults.” “Surety bonds give them extra protection they need,” he adds. “The bonds are there to compensate the government for losses or damages suffered under those contracts as a result of the contractor defaulting. For sureties, the contractor is the risk and the government is looking for a third-party guarantee that if the contractor defaults the government will be able to call on that guarantee and look for compensation.” Surety bonds have a number of benefits in comparison to other risk mitigation tools, such as irrevocable letters of credit (LOCs) for instance, helping to bridge the gap between contractors and the banks and injecting liquidity into the system. And unlike LOCs, completion of the construction project remains a key goal of a surety bond, which remain in force for the duration of the contract, in addition to the provision of financial protection. https://www.strategic-risk-europe.com/could-surety-bonds-have-saved-carillions-subcontractors-from-millions-in-financial-loss/1428682.article

Could surety bonds have saved Carillion’s customers from millions in financial loss? Read More »

Scroll to Top
Document