Posts By: Chris Wielinski

Pat Wielinski Continues to Advocate for the Construction Industry

Pat Wielinski recently filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of Associated General Contractors of America, National Association of Home Builders, American Subcontractors Association, and six of their local chapters in Case No. 129087; Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, in the Supreme Court of Illinois. The brief was filed in support of M/I Homes of Chicago, a homebuilder, and addressed a longstanding issue as to insurance coverage for the construction industry in Illinois, that is, whether only damage to property separate from the project can constitute a covered occurrence under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies issued to developers and contractors. The brief argued that nothing in the standard policy or common sense prevents a contractor from obtaining coverage for unexpected and unintended property damage to non-defective work on the project or work performed by the insured’s subcontractors. Pat co-authored the brief with Clifford Shapiro of Chicago.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Pat at pwielinski@cokinoslaw.com. A copy of the brief can be found here.

Patrick J. Wielinski

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Robbie MacPherson Recognized by New Jersey Super Lawyers®

Cokinos | Young is pleased to announce that Robert J. MacPherson has been recognized by New Jersey Super Lawyers®. This is Robbie’s 17th year of being recognized by the publication.

This distinction is held by less than five percent of Texas lawyers and selections are made on a state-by-state basis. Independent research consisting of an evaluation of 12 varying indicators of professional achievement combined with peer nominations and evaluations are employed to determine this accolade.

The 2023 rankings appear in the June issue of New Jersey Super Lawyers® magazine.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Corporate Transparency Act: Private Companies Will Soon Be a Little Less Private

Privately-owned companies in the U.S. have long enjoyed a great degree of privacy about their internal affairs, particularly as to the identities of their owners. In less than a year, that will begin to change. Starting in 2024, a federal law will require many privately-owned companies to disclose to a federal agency certain basic information about their major owners and controlling persons. The information will not be made public, but it will be available to federal, state and local agencies for specific purposes. During the months before the law takes effect, private companies should begin preparing for the new reporting requirements, particularly since there will be civil and criminal penalties for failing to file such reports.

Overview

The new law is the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which Congress enacted in 2020 as part of major legislation to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. Under the CTA, privately-owned companies that are not exempt will have to report to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) certain “beneficial ownership information” (BOI) about each person who either owns 25% or more of the company’s ownership interests, or who exercises “substantial control” over the company. (In many cases, they will also have to report BOI for persons involved in forming the company.) The reporting requirements for newly-formed companies will become effective on January 1, 2024. Companies that were formed before that date will have until January 1, 2025 to file their reports. These requirements, and some other important aspects of the CTA, are summarized below. If you would like to discuss how they will affect your company, please contact Philip Kinkaid at 713.535.5542 or one of the other corporate attorneys listed at the end of this article.

Companies that must report

Basic rule

The CTA applies to corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), and other types of companies that are created by a filing with a Secretary of State or equivalent official (SOS). In Texas, these include limited partnerships, professional associations, cooperatives, and real estate investment trusts (REITs). The CTA does not apply to the following types of companies and entities, because they are not formed by SOS filings:

  • Trusts (except for REITS and, outside Texas, business trusts and other statutory trusts).
  • General partnerships, including joint ventures structured as general partnerships. It is not clear if limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are included or excluded.

The CTA also applies to non-U.S. companies that register to do business in the U.S. through an SOS filing.

Exemptions

The CTA exempts 23 types of companies from the reporting requirements. The most important exemptions are these:

  • “Large Operating Companies,” defined as any company that meets all of the following requirements:
    • It employs more than 20 full-time employees in the U.S.
    • In the previous year, it filed a U.S. federal income tax return demonstrating (on a consolidated basis) more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales from U.S. sources.
    • It has an operating presence at a physical office in the U.S.

This exemption for Large Operating Companies may come as a surprise, because many important federal laws take the opposite approach: they apply to large companies and exempt small ones. By contrast, the CTA applies to small companies rather than large ones. This is because the CTA’s primary purpose is to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. Those criminal activities are typically conducted through small companies.  (The vast majority of small companies in the U.S., of course, are not engaged in such illegal activities.)

  • Publicly-traded companies.
  • Other specified types of companies that are already subject to reporting requirements or regulatory oversight, such as banks, credit unions, insurance companies, public accounting firms, broker-dealers, investment advisors, investment companies, certain types of pooled investment vehicles, regulated public utilities, etc.
  • Tax-exempt entities and certain related entities.
  • Inactive entities that were formed before 2020, hold no assets, and meet certain other requirements.
  • Wholly-owned subsidiaries of most types of exempt companies, including Large Operating Companies.

Companies that are subject to the CTA, and that are not exempt, are considered “Reporting Companies.”

Reporting requirements

Beneficial Owners

A Reporting Company must report to FinCEN the BOI for each of its “Beneficial Owners.” A Beneficial Owner is defined as someone who either owns or controls 25% or more of the “ownership interests” of the Reporting Company, or who directly or indirectly exercises “substantial control” over the Reporting Company.

25% ownership. In applying the 25%-ownership test, the term “ownership interest” is not limited to traditional equity, such as stock, membership interests, units, capital interests and profits interests. Instead, it also applies broadly to any instruments (including debt) that are convertible into equity, as well as options, warrants, futures, puts, calls and other rights to buy or sell equity. It also applies to both non-voting as well as voting interests.

Substantial control. A “Beneficial Owner” also includes anyone who exercises “substantial control” over the Reporting Company, regardless of what percentage of ownership interests they own. (Indeed, someone who exercises “substantial control” will be considered a Beneficial Owner even if they own no ownership interests – making the term “Beneficial Owner” something of a misnomer.) “Substantial control” exists if the person meets any of the following criteria:

  • Serves as a senior officer of the Reporting Company, such as a President, CEO, COO, CFO or General Counsel.
  • Has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar body).
  • Directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the Reporting Company, including numerous specified types of decisions.
  • Has “any other form of substantial control” over the Reporting Company – an undefined, “catch-all” criteria.

For each Beneficial Owner, the Reporting Company must report the following BOI to FinCEN:

  • Full legal name.
  • Date of birth.
  • Residential address.
  • Passport number, driver’s license number or other acceptable identification, together with a copy of the ID document.

Updates. If there are any changes in the identities of the Beneficial Owners, or to any of their BOI, the Reporting Company must file an updated report with FinCEN within 30 days of the change – regardless of when the Reporting Company learns of it.

Company Applicants

A Reporting Company that is formed (or registered) on or after January 1, 2024 must also report BOI for each “Company Applicant” – defined as the person who files the SOS document that forms the Reporting Company (or registers a non-U.S. entity to do business in the U.S.), and also any person who is “primarily responsible for directing or controlling” the filing of such document. There is no requirement, however, to update this information.

Information about the Reporting Company

In its FinCEN report, the Reporting Company must also include certain limited information about itself: its legal name, all trade names or “DBAs,” state of formation, address of its principal place of business, and its taxpayer identification number.

FinCEN Identifiers

To make the reporting process more efficient, FinCEN will allow an individual to report his or her own BOI to FinCEN and obtain a numerical “FinCEN Identifier.” (He or she will also be responsible for any updates to the BOI.) If that person is, for example, a Beneficial Owner of several Reporting Companies, each of those companies will only have to report the person’s FinCEN Identifier. (Reporting Companies will also be able to obtain their own FinCEN Identifiers.)

Phase-in of reporting requirements

The CTA’s reporting requirements will be phased-in in two stages:

  • January 1, 2024: All new Reporting Companies – those formed (or, in the case of non-U.S. companies, registered) on or after January 1, 2024 – must report BOI for both their Beneficial Owners and Company Applicants to FinCEN within 30 days after their formation or registration.
  • January 1, 2025: All existing Reporting Companies – those formed or registered before January 1, 2024 – must report BOI for their Beneficial Owners (but not their Company Applicants) to FinCEN no later than January 1, 2025.

Penalties

Penalties for willfully violating the CTA’s reporting requirements include (1) civil penalties of $500 per day that a violation is not remedied, (2) a criminal fine of up to $10,000, and/or (3) imprisonment of up to two years.

Access to the reported BOI

BOI that is reported to FinCEN will not be public, and it will not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. FinCEN will be required to keep the BOI secure in a restricted-access database. Federal agencies will be able to access the database for certain purposes, including national security, intelligence, law enforcement, and tax administration, and to respond to inquiries from government authorities in certain foreign countries. State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies can also obtain access, but only with a court order. Banks and other financial institutions can request specific BOI, but only with the Reporting Company’s consent.

Regulatory implementation

FinCEN is in the process of developing the regulatory framework to implement the CTA. It has already adopted a final rule governing the BOI reporting process and adding details to many of the concepts summarized above. More recently, it proposed a rule regarding access to the FinCEN BOI database, and has sought comments on proposed forms for reporting BOI and obtaining FinCEN Identifiers. It has also promised to post detailed answers to questions not addressed in those rulemakings.

How to prepare for the CTA

The first important CTA date (January 1, 2024, for newly-formed companies) is still several months away, and the reporting deadline for existing companies (January 1, 2025) is a year later still. But because the CTA introduces a completely-novel reporting regime, and because it intentionally focuses on small businesses, now is the time for privately-owned companies to begin considering a number of questions:

  • Is my company subject to the CTA – or, on the other hand, does it qualify for any of the 23 exemptions?  In many cases, this will turn on two important requirements to qualify for the “Large Operating Company” exemption: whether it has at least 20 full-time employees in the U.S., and at least $5 million in gross receipts or sales from U.S. sources, as shown on its previous year’s federal income tax return. If it does not satisfy both requirements, then it does not qualify for the “Large Operating Company” exemption.

If a company is not exempt, then the following questions should be considered:

  • How do I calculate percentages of “ownership interests,” to determine if any owners meet the 25%-ownership threshold?  In many companies with simple capital structures, the answer will be obvious. It may be much less obvious, however, in companies with complicated capital structures (given the expansive definition of “ownership interest”), or companies in which some ownership interests are held indirectly – for example, through upper-tier investment entities, holding companies, or trusts.
  • How do I determine each person who exercises “substantial control” over the company?  There may well be multiple people who qualify, given the expansiveness (and vagueness) of the “substantial control” definition.
  • Who should be responsible for preparing the report, and who should verify it?
  • What procedures should the company put in place to monitor future changes in its Beneficial Owners, or their BOI, that will require updated reports to FinCEN? A private company should also consider adding to its company agreement a requirement that it be promptly informed of any FinCEN-reportable changes. It may also want to encourage Beneficial Owners to obtain their own FinCEN Identifiers and thereby become personally responsible for reporting changes to their own BOI.
  • As 2024 approaches, should the formation of new subsidiaries or affiliates be accelerated into 2023, to delay BOI reporting for them until the January 1, 2025 deadline for existing companies?

Attorneys in the Corporate Transactions practice group of Cokinos | Young are knowledgeable about the CTA and its final and proposed regulations, and will monitor future developments as FinCEN rolls out its implementation throughout 2023. To discuss how your company should prepare for the CTA, contact one of the following corporate attorneys at Cokinos | Young:

About Cokinos | Young 

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Cokinos | Young Successfully Defends ENR Top 10 General Contractor Against $37,000,000 Claim

Led by the trial team of Houston Principals John C. Warren, John L. Grayson, and C. Matthew Thompson, Cokinos | Young obtained a very favorable defense award after a three-week arbitration hearing on behalf of an ENR Top 10 general contractor client against claims of over $37,000,000 brought by a subcontractor and four pass-through sub-subcontractors. The case involved one of the largest commercial projects ever built in the City of Houston, and the largest healthcare tower project built to date in the Texas Medical Center, with construction costs that exceeded a half billion dollars. After hearing testimony from over 25 witnesses and entry of nearly 4,000 trial exhibits and demonstratives, the claimants recovered nothing on their loss of productivity, acceleration, and delay claims associated with alleged mismanagement, abuse, and intentional interference, and were denied their claim for over $6,800,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.

John [Warren] and his team at Cokinos | Young provided us with outstanding trial advocacy in the face of multiple spurious allegations of mismanagement, extra work, lost productivity and acceleration from an underperforming subcontractor.  After years of litigation and then multiple weeks of arbitration hearings, John successfully and completely defeated all claims.  We could not have been more satisfied with the results!  John and his team at Cokinos | Young are truly exemplary trial lawyers and we were happy to have them in our corner.

Assistant General Counsel for ENR Top 10 General Contractor
John Grayson Houston Cokinos Young
John Grayson Houston Cokinos Young

About Cokinos | Young 

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Major Wins From Our Appellate Team You Should Know About

Cokinos | Young Appeals & Legal Issues Group, led by nationally renowned attorneys Roger D. Townsend, Dana Livingston and Anthony T. Golz, has a proven track record of success in adding value to our litigation practice, securing favorable decisions for our clients, and tenaciously representing our clients’ positions in the crucible of legal disputes. Our team holds an impressive track record of appellate victories that advance our client’s interests. Here are a few recent victories worth noting.

Cokinos | Young Client Victory in Precedent-Setting Construction Case

Anthony T. Golz, Roger D. Townsend

  • Cokinos | Young client, one of the largest construction companies in the southern United States, sought enforcement of an unambiguous termination-for-default provision that requires three separate owner-provided written notices before effective termination for default. The case arises out of the defendant’s termination of a chemical plant construction contract with our client after the defendant allegedly raised complaints about safety concerns. The C|Y Appeals & Legal Issues Group persuaded the Texas Supreme Court to intervene in this case to resolve whether Texas will adhere to the majority rule in American jurisdictions that requires strict compliance with express contract conditions before terminating the contract for default, or whether Texas will tolerate mere “substantial compliance” with such conditions. The Texas Supreme Court reversed most of a $1.1 million damages award in a dispute over the soured deal. This was a long and hard-fought case for our Cokinos | Young team and resulted in a huge win for a deserving client.

Texas Supreme Court Victory in Discovery Dispute

Dana Livingston

  • Dana Livingston, head of our Appeals & Legal Issues Group, convinced the Texas Supreme Court to exercise its discretion to weigh in on a key discovery battle. The opinion sorts out the confused law about what discovery is allowed in connection with a special appearance. Earlier in the case, the Austin court of appeals had granted mandamus relief for our opponent and issued an opinion saying that jurisdictional discovery is not permitted if the discovery overlaps with the merits. The Texas Supreme Court agreed with our client that the court of appeals got it wrong. Put simply, the information sought must be essential to prove at least one part of the plaintiff’s theory of personal jurisdiction.  This case will be your guide if you face that situation from now on.

Cokinos | Young Successfully Defended One of the Largest Midstream Energy Companies in North America Against $100+ Million Claim

Gregory Cokinos, Rob Naudin, Russell W. Smith, Christopher Wan, Roger D. Townsend

  • Cokinos | Young successfully defended one of the largest and most diversified midstream energy companies in North America against a contractor’s $100+ Million claim. The Appeals and Legal Issues department was brought in to handle pretrial briefing and preserve error during trial.

Significant Appellate Win in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Anthony T. Golz

  • The Fourteenth Court of Appeals granted mandamus relief to our client ordering the trial court to dismiss the general contractor’s and subcontractor’s claims asserted against our client because they were brought in violation of the parties’ agreed forum-selection clause. Although the project is located in Texas, the forum-selection clause required that any litigation be brought in Oklahoma. The general contractor and subcontractor asserted Texas’s “home rule” statute (section 272.001 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code) as a bar to enforcement of the forum-selection clause. But the appellate court agreed with our client that the general contractor and subcontractor had contractually waived any rights they had under section 272.001 to avoid enforcement of the forum-selection clause. The operative contract language can be used for any of our clients to contract around a comparable “home rule” statute that purports to make “voidable” (rather than “void”) contractual forum-selection or choice-of-law provisions. 

Texas Supreme Court Clean Sweep in Deeded Property Dust Up

Dana Livingston

  • Dana Livingston, head of our Appeals and Legal Issues Group, recently brought home a unanimous win from the Texas Supreme Court in a hotly contested dispute that read like a law school exam question about intergenerational transfers of lucrative property interests.  The Supreme Court of Texas agreed with Cokinos | Young principal Dana Livingston that the property interest had not been inadvertently conveyed.

Supreme Court of Texas Win in Challenge to RTP Procedure

Roger D. Townsend

  • The Appeals and Legal Issues department successfully convinced the Supreme Court of Texas not to review a case challenging the responsible-third-party procedure as unconstitutional when applied to employers immunized by the Worker’s Compensation Act.

Cokinos | Young preserves win at Supreme Court of Texas in Contest over Real-Estate Ownership

Dana Livingston, Jim Ewbank, Stephanie Cook, and Anthony T. Golz

  • Cokinos | Young came out on top in a years-long battle defending a national organization against a faction that tried to claim ownership of the organization’s valuable real estate.  Dana Livingston persuaded the Texas Supreme Court to rule in favor of our client in a win that helps the organization fend off similar battles in other jurisdictions.

Cokinos | Young Saves Approximately $60 million for Major Energy Company

Roger D. Townsend

  • Roger D. Townsend led the effort in securing on appeal a savings of almost $60 million for a major energy company. The decision was the first to define the phrase “willful misconduct” that is used in Model Form Joint Operating Agreements throughout Texas.

About Cokinos | Young 

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

9 Cokinos | Young Attorneys Named 2023 Texas Rising Stars by Super Lawyers®

Cokinos | Young is pleased to announce that nine of its attorneys have been recognized on the 2023 Texas Rising Stars list of exceptional young attorneys. Rising Stars is a ranking service based on a statewide survey, peer nominations, and independent research of Thomson Reuters. Less than 2.5 percent of Texas attorneys are chosen for this prestigious distinction. To be eligible, lawyers must be 40 years old or younger, or in practice for 10 years or less. View the full digital edition here.

commercial litigation attorney
Chance K. Decker
6th year making the list
James S. Richards
6th year making the list
R. Anderson Sessions
4th year making the list
C. Matthew Thompson
6th year making the list
Christopher C. Wan
6th year making the list

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Government Contracts Case Study: Type II Differing Site Condition

Differing Site Condition (DSC) claims are common in government contracting. In the typical Type I DSC claim the contractor must establish that the condition it encountered differed from what the Contract indicated. For example, rock was encountered not soil.

A Type II Differing Site Condition (DSC) is by definition “of an unusual nature, differing materially from those ordinarily encountered”. In a Type II DSC case, unlike a Type I where the Contract forms a reference point, there is no clear point of reference. Instead, the conditions encountered must be judged by what is normal for the area. A behavioral DSC is even more unique. To establish a behavioral DSC the contractor must establish that that while the ground did not appear to be unusual, the ground behaved in an unusual manner during construction.

Representing a jet grout contractor, Robbie MacPherson successfully led a team which established the existence of a Type II Behavioral DSC involving the construction of two New York City subway stations a block apart. Jet grouting is a method of insitu soil treatment that is commonly used to underpin foundations, provide excavation support, or, as in this case, to create a groundwater cut-off using a watertight base plug for excavation below the water table.

The contractor had extensive jet grout experience, including experience in New York City. It also had available to it the technical experience of its parent company, which performs jet grouting worldwide. Typically, jet grout columns are formed, and their diameter, composition and properties, such as strength, selected to match the design parameters. Column diameter is one of the most important design parameters in jet grouting, as it is fundamental to the construction of a treated zone formed from overlapping columns. Full scale field trials are first conducted to verify the selection of the jet grout parameters, based on successful prior experience. Following its established practices, the contractor devised and implemented a jet grout trial program. However, the trial results were unexpected, unpredictable, and unusual compared to past experience. After several revisions to its testing procedures, which were time consuming and costly, sufficient column diameters were formed at the first station site. The contractor then moved to the second site, a block away, but had to start the trial process all over again when the soil at that site did not react the same when the design parameters established at the first site were employed. 

Establishing the existence of the Type II DSC required proving the experience of the contractor’s staff, the company itself and its parent. Next, we needed to prove that the trial program followed both the industry and the contractor’s normal practice and procedure. Finally, we had to coordinate that evidence with the opinion testimony offered by several expert witnesses. We also worked with the client and experts to rebut the defense put on by the subway authority and its experts. 

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Your C|Y Government Contracts Team

Cokinos | Young started off the year strong with the strategic addition of the Bailey and Bailey team, and their deep Federal Government Contract experience, to our Government Contracts practice. The addition of Johnathan Bailey and his team, combined with our existing Governmental Contract group lead by John DiBiasi and Robbie MacPherson, further bolsters the practice’s capabilities and solidifies our position as a national leader in the Federal and Local Public Contracts space. Our attorneys bring a wealth of experience and knowledge that allow us to effectively and strategically serve our existing and prospective clients across the nation that are facing regulatory requirements in this highly competitive and specialized legal practice.

For many years, our Government Contracts team has assisted contractors large and small in every stage of the contract process from qualifying to do business with the federal and local governments, winning and keeping contracts in the bid protest process, navigating regulatory compliance during performance, and when necessary litigating in the courts and before contract dispute boards to make sure the government lives up to its contractual obligations. Our deep bench of experts have devoted their careers to staying ahead of changes and challenges that come with the extensive regulations in this unique market.

Meet the leaders of our Government Contracts practice:

Johnathan Bailey is a former name and founding partner in the firm Bailey & Bailey, P.C. where over 25 years of practice he built a reputation for knowledge and excellence in representation of construction, service, IT and manufacturing companies seeking to do business with the numerous agencies of the federal government and the State of Texas. He has litigated more than 250 bid protests involving billions of dollars in federal contracts before the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the United States Court of Federal Claims. Johnathan has also prepared, negotiated and litigated hundreds of Contract Disputes Act claims with dozens of federal contracting agencies and litigated before all existing (and previously existing) Boards of Contract Appeals and the FAA’s Office of Dispute Resolution.

Coming from a small firm environment, Johnathan has extensive experience in representation of small business federal contractors, including especially socio-economic programs administered by the US Small Business Administration including the 8(a) Business Development, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, Woman-Owned Small Business and HUBZone programs.

The wide range of challenges faced by federal contractors has also given Johnathan many years of experience in range of federal contracting matters including Department of Labor (Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon Act) compliance, suspension and debarment proceedings, and qui tam litigation under the federal False Claims Act.

John DiBiasi focuses on assisting general contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers engaged in the design and construction of publics works projects, including bridges, tunnels, highways, water and sanitary pipelines and plant facilities, dams, levees, treatment plants, and other heavy civil infrastructure across the country. His knowledge extends to every level of government contracting, from municipal to federal projects and everything in between. John’s extensive experience in resolving these contract disputes includes navigating a wide variety of situations and requirements unique to government contracting, including bid protests, claim preservation and presentation, disadvantaged business goals, government shutdowns, statutory notice requirements, corrective action plans, defense of defective work or workmanship claims, false claims allegations, defaults and terminations, dispute resolution boards, and local, state and federal litigation nationwide.

Robbie MacPherson has been representing contractors and subcontractors with public works contracts since 1981. He has handled matters involving New York City’s Department of Design & Construction, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Citywide Administrative Services, and the School Construction Authority among others. Has appeared before many NYC Procurement Policy Board tribunals, handling both disputes and bid protests. His New York State public contract experience includes handling matters involving the MTA, Dormitory  Authority of the State of New York, State University of New York and City University of New York, and other public authorities in New York. In New Jersey he has handled claims against Counties, Municipalities and Local Authorities. Robbie has also represented public bodies and school districts in New Jersey. The projects involved ranged from school buildings to major infrastructure, including the East Side Access Program, the Goethals Bridge Replacement Program, the Second Avenue Subway and the Canarsie  Tunnel Sandy Repair Program. The projects involve trades from jet grouting to electrical work and roofing. He has litigated public contracts disputes in courts in both New York and New Jersey. He has also mediated and arbitrated public contract disputes in both states and elsewhere.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

C|Y Observes Notable 10 Year Anniversary

The Cokinos | Young Insurance Coverage Team is observing a ten-year anniversary as to the Texas Anti-Indemnity Statute at Chapter 151 of the Texas Insurance Code. That statute went into effect on January 1, 2012, as to primary construction contracts entered into between the owner and the contractor on or after that date. In other words, any original contract that is less than ten years old as of January 1, 2023, is subject to Anti-Indemnity Act. As to subordinate subcontracts, purchase orders and other agreements, they are governed by the date of the primary contract for the same project.

Of course, when the Anti-Indemnity Act applies, a construction contract is void to the extent it purports to indemnify the indemnitee for its own negligence or fault. That prohibition is subject to an employee injury exception, which permits parties to require indemnification for their own negligence in personal injury claims by the indemnifying party’s employee. The most common example is a third-party over action by an employee of a lower-tier contractor against an upper-tier contractor or owner.

While ten years have already passed, many issues as to the applicability of the Anti-Indemnity Act persist, including issues relating to additional insured provisions in construction contracts. The C|Y Insurance Coverage Team continues to monitor these issues, so please contact them with questions here.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. By using our site, you provide your consent.

Read More