XML 57 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Contingencies and Commitments | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2013
Contingencies and Commitments |
Contingencies and Commitments | (7) Contingencies and Commitments The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and are contingently liable for commitments and performance guarantees arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company and certain of its clients have made claims arising from the performance under their contracts. The Company recognizes certain significant claims for recovery of incurred cost when it is probable that the claim will result in additional contract revenue and when the amount of the claim can be reliably estimated. These assessments require judgments concerning matters such as litigation developments and outcomes, the anticipated outcome of negotiations, the number of future claims and the cost of both pending and future claims. In addition, because most contingencies are resolved over long periods of time, liabilities may change in the future due to various factors. Several matters are in the litigation and dispute resolution process. The following discussion provides a background and current status of these matters. Tutor-Saliba-Perini Joint Venture vs. Los Angeles MTA Matter During 1995 Tutor-Saliba-Perini (“Joint Venture”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LAMTA”), seeking to recover costs for extra work required by LAMTA in connection with the construction of certain tunnel and station projects. In 1999, LAMTA countered with civil claims under the California False Claims Act against the Joint Venture, Tutor-Saliba and the Company jointly and severally (together, “TSP”). Between 2005 and 2010, the court granted certain Joint Venture motions and LAMTA capitulated on others, which reduced the number of false claims LAMTA may seek and limited LAMTA’s claims for damages and penalties. In September 2010, LAMTA dismissed its remaining claims and agreed to pay the entire amount of the Joint Venture’s remaining claims plus interest. The Court subsequently entered judgment in favor of TSP and against LAMTA in the amount of $3.0 million after deducting $0.5 million, representing the tunnel handrail verdict plus accrued interest against TSP. The parties filed post-trial motions for costs and fees. The Court ruled that TSP’s sureties could recover costs, LAMTA could recover costs for the tunnel handrail trial, and no party could recover attorneys’ fees. TSP is appealing the false claims jury verdict on the tunnel handrail claim and other issues, including the denial of TSP’s and its sureties’ request for attorneys’ fees. LAMTA subsequently filed its notice of cross-appeal. In March 2012, the Court finalized the preparation of the record for the Court of Appeal; opening briefs were filed in August 2012 for the main appeal and September 2012 for the appeal of the Court’s denial of attorneys’ fees to TSP and its sureties. The appeal of this case is expected to take at least a year. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Perini/Kiewit/Cashman Joint Venture-Central Artery/Tunnel Project Matter Perini/Kiewit/Cashman Joint Venture (“PKC”), a joint venture in which the Company holds a 56% interest and is the managing partner, is currently pursuing a series of claims, instituted at different times since 2000, for additional contract time and/or compensation against the Massachusetts Highway Department (“MHD”) for work performed by PKC on a portion of the Central Artery/Tunnel (“CA/T”) project in Boston, Massachusetts. During construction, MHD ordered PKC to perform changes to the work and issued related direct cost changes with an estimated value, excluding time delay and inefficiency costs, in excess of $100 million. In addition, PKC encountered a number of unforeseen conditions during construction that greatly increased PKC’s cost of performance. MHD has asserted counterclaims for liquidated damages and backcharges. Certain of PKC’s claims have been presented to a Disputes Review Board (“DRB”), which consists of three construction experts chosen by the parties. To date, five DRB panels have issued several awards and interim decisions in favor of PKC’s claims, amounting to total awards to PKC in excess of $128 million plus interest, of which $110 million were binding awards. In December 2010, the Suffolk County Superior Court granted MHD’s motion for summary judgment to vacate the Third DRB Panel’s awards to PKC for approximately $56.5 million. The Court granted the motion on the grounds that the arbitrators do not have authority to decide whether particular claims are subject to the arbitration provision of the contract. MHD subsequently moved to vacate approximately $13.7 million of the Fourth DRB Panel’s total awards to PKC on the same arbitrability basis that the Third DRB’s awards were vacated. In October 2011, the Suffolk County Superior Court followed its earlier arbitrability rulings holding that the Fourth DRB exceeded its authority in deciding arbitrability with respect to certain of the Fourth DRB Panel’s awards (approximately $8 million of the $13.7 million discussed above). PKC appealed the Superior Court decisions and in January 2013, the Superior Court decisions were affirmed in MHDs favor. The Appeals Court remanded the case back to the lower court to determine how and by whom the claims must be decided. PKC filed an application for further appellate review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and a motion for reconsideration in the Appeals Court. The Appeals Court rejected PKC’s petition for rehearing. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court deferred its decision to a later date. No trial date has been set in any of the cases or decisions. In February 2012, PKC received a $22 million payment for an interest award associated with the Second DRB panel’s awards to PKC. In January 2013, PKC received a $14.8 million payment for backcharges and interest associated with the Fourth DRB panel’s awards to PKC that were confirmed. Management has made an estimate of the anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Matter The Company reconstructed the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Interchange project for the New York State Department of Transportation (the “NYSDOT”). The $130 million project was substantially completed in January 2004 and was accepted by the NYSDOT as finally complete in February 2006. The Company incurred significant added costs in completing its work and suffered extended schedule costs due to numerous design errors, undisclosed utility conflicts, lack of coordination with local agencies and other interferences for which the Company believes that the NYSDOT is responsible. In March 2011, the Company filed its claim and complaint with the New York State Court of Claims and served to the New York State Attorney General’s Office, seeking damages in the amount of $53.8 million. In May 2011, the NYSDOT filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s claim on the grounds that the Company had not provided required documentation for project closeout and filing of a claim. In September 2011, the Company reached agreement on final payment with the Comptroller’s Office on behalf of the NYSDOT which resulted in an amount of $0.5 million payable to the Company and formally closed out the project, which allowed the Company’s claim to be re-filed. The Company re-filed its claim in the amount of $53.8 million with the NYSDOT in February 2012 and with the Court of Claims in March 2012. In May 2012, the NYSDOT served its answer and counterclaims in the amount of $151 million alleging fraud in the inducement and punitive damages related to disadvantaged business enterprise (“DBE”) requirements for the project. The Company does not expect the counterclaim to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. Gaylord Hotel and Convention Center Matter In 2005, Gaylord National, LLC (“Gaylord”), as Owner, and Perini Building Company, Inc. / Tompkins Builders, Joint Venture (“PTJV”), as Construction Manager, entered into a contract to construct the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center project in Maryland. The project is complete and as part of its settlement with Gaylord reached in November 2008, PTJV agreed to pay all subcontractors and defend all claims and lien actions by them relating to the project. PTJV has closed out most subcontracts. Resolution of the issues with the remaining subcontractors may require mediation, arbitration and/or trial. PTJV is pursuing an insurance claim for approximately $40 million related to work performed by Banker Steel Company, Inc. (“Banker Steel”), a subcontractor, including $11 million for business interruption costs incurred by Gaylord which have effectively been assigned to PTJV. In November 2009, PTJV filed suit against Factory Mutual Insurance Co. (“FM”) in the Maryland federal district court alleging FM breached the insurance contracts and for declaratory judgment with respect to the insurance coverage. In December 2010, PTJV filed suit against ACE American Insurance Company (“ACE”) in Maryland federal district court alleging ACE breached the general liability insurance contract and acted in bad faith, and PTJV requested a declaratory judgment with respect to the insurance coverage. FM and ACE each brought separate motions for summary judgment. In October, 2012, FM’s motion was denied; ACE’s motion was granted. PTJV is in the process of appealing the ACE decision and exploring a potential mediation or settlement as discussions continue with FM and ACE. Trial is scheduled for July 23, 2013. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. Fontainebleau Matter Desert Mechanical Inc. (“DMI”) and Fisk, wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, were subcontractors on the Fontainebleau Project in Las Vegas (“Fontainebleau”), a hotel/casino complex with approximately 3,800 rooms. In June 2009, Fontainebleau filed for bankruptcy protection, under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, in the Southern District of Florida. Fontainebleau is headquartered in Miami, Florida. DMI and Fisk filed liens in Nevada for approximately $44 million, representing unreimbursed costs to date and lost profits, including anticipated profits. Other unaffiliated subcontractors have also filed liens. In June 2009, DMI filed suit against Turnberry West Construction, Inc. (“Turnberry”), the general contractor, in the 8th Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, and in May 2010, the court entered an order in favor of DMI for approximately $45 million. DMI is uncertain as to Turnberry’s present financial condition. In January 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of the property to Icahn Nevada Gaming Acquisition, LLC, and this transaction closed in February 2010. As a result of a July 2010 ruling relating to certain priming liens, there is now approximately $125 million set aside from this sale, which is available for distribution to satisfy the creditor claims based on seniority. The total estimated sustainable lien amount is approximately $350 million. The project lender filed suit against the mechanic’s lien claimants, including DMI and Fisk, alleging that certain mechanic’s liens are invalid and that all mechanic’s liens are subordinate to the lender’s claims against the property. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in October 2012 in an advisory opinion at the request of the Bankruptcy Court that lien priorities would be determined in favor of the mechanic lien holders under Nevada law. Discovery in the bankruptcy matter is currently stayed until the Bankruptcy Court rules on pending motions to dismiss filed by the lienholders. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. MGM CityCenter Matter Tutor Perini Building Corp. (“TPBC”) (formerly Perini Building Company, Inc.), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, contracted with MGM MIRAGE Design Group (“MGM”) in March 2005 to construct the CityCenter project in Las Vegas, Nevada. The project, which encompasses nineteen separate contracts, is a 66-acre urban mixed use development consisting of hotels, condominiums, retail space and a casino. The Company achieved substantial completion of the project in December 2009, and MGM opened the project to the public on the same date. In March 2010, the Company filed suit against MGM and certain other property owners in the Clark County District Court alleging several claims including breach of contract, among other items. In a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by MGM in March 2010, and in subsequent communications issued, MGM has asserted that it believes it owes substantially less than the claimed amount and that it has claims for losses in connection with the construction of the Harmon Tower and is entitled to unspecified offsets for other work on the project. According to MGM, the total of the offsets and the Harmon Tower claims exceed the amount claimed by the Company. In May 2010, MGM filed a counterclaim and third party complaint against the Company and its subsidiary TPBC. The court granted the Company and MGM’s joint motion to consolidate all subcontractor initiated actions into the main CityCenter lawsuit. In July 2012, the Court granted MGM’s motion to demolish the Harmon Tower, one of the CityCenter buildings, as a “business decision.” Evidence had been presented at the Harmon related hearings that the Harmon Tower could be repaired for approximately $21 million, more than $15 million of which is due to design defects that are MGM’s responsibility. In mid-September 2012, MGM filed a request for additional destructive testing in the Harmon Tower. In October 2012, the Court ruled it would allow additional testing but with certain conditions including but not limited to the Court’s withdrawing MGM’s right to demolish the Harmon Tower and severing the Harmon Tower defects issue from the rest of the case. In February 2013, MGM filed third-party complaints against the project designers. In early April 2013, MGM started additional testing in the Harmon Tower. The Court ordered a settlement conference to be held in August 2013. Trial has been scheduled for January 2014. With respect to alleged losses at the Harmon Tower, the Company has contractual indemnities from the responsible subcontractor, as well as existing insurance coverage that it expects will be available and sufficient to cover any liability that may be associated with this matter. The Company’s insurance carrier initiated legal proceedings seeking declaratory relief that their insurance policies do not provide for defense or coverage for matters pertaining to the Harmon Towers. Those proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of the underlying dispute in Nevada District Court. The Company is not aware of a basis for other claims that would amount to material offsets against what MGM owes to the Company. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. As of March 2013, MGM has reached agreements with subcontractors to settle at a discount $302.8 million of amounts previously billed to MGM. The Company has reduced and will continue to reduce amounts included in revenues, cost of construction operations, accounts receivable and accounts payable for the reduction in subcontractor pass-through billings, which the Company would not expect to have an impact on recorded profit. As of March 2013, the Company had approximately $192 million recorded as contract receivables for amounts due and owed to the Company and its subcontractors. In December 2011, a portion of the amounts owed to one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Fisk, was paid for approximately $15 million. Included in the Company’s receivables are pass-through subcontractor billings for contract work and retention, and other requests for equitable adjustment for additional work in the amount of $48 million. As of March 2013, the Company’s mechanic’s lien against the project was $191.3 million. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. Honeywell Street/Queens Boulevard Bridges Matter In 1999, the Company was awarded a contract for reconstruction of the Honeywell Street/Queens Boulevard Bridges project for the City of New York (the “City”). In June 2003, after substantial completion of the project, the Company initiated an action to recover $8.75 million in claims against the City on behalf of itself and its subcontractors. In March 2010, the City filed counterclaims for $74.6 million and other relief, alleging fraud in connection with the DBE requirements for the project. In May 2010, the Company served the City with its response to the City’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses. No trial date has been set. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Westgate Planet Hollywood Matter Tutor-Saliba Corporation (“TSC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, contracted to construct a time share development project in Las Vegas which was substantially completed in December 2009. The Company’s claims against the owner, Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, LLC (“WPH”), relate to unresolved owner change orders and other claims. The Company filed a lien on the project in the amount of $23.2 million, and filed its complaint with the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. Several subcontractors have also recorded liens, some of which have been released by bonds and some of which have been released as a result of subsequent payment. Westgate has posted a mechanic’s lien release bond for $22.3 million. WPH filed a cross-complaint alleging non-conforming and defective work for approximately $51 million, primarily related to alleged defects, misallocated costs, and liquidated damages. Some or all of the allegations will be defended by counsel appointed by TSC’s insurance carrier. WPH has since revised the amount of their counterclaims to approximately $45 million. Subcontractor claims have settled before trial. Trial on the remaining issues began in October 2012. In late February 2013, the Court ordered judgment in favor of TSC in the amount of $9.0 million plus interest and attorneys’ fees. The Court also ordered judgment in favor of WPH in the amount of $2.6 million plus interest for defect claims that are anticipated to be paid by the owner-controlled insurance program (“OCIP”) carrier. Judgment will not be entered until final ruling on the bifurcated OCIP claim, with the OCIP portion of the case now scheduled for trial in May 2013 while the parties continue discussions to resolve the OCIP claim issues. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. 100th Street Bus Depot Matter The Company constructed the 100th Street Bus Depot for the New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) in New York. Prior to receiving notice of final acceptance from the NYCTA, this project experienced a failure of the brick façade on the building due to faulty subcontractor work. The Company has not yet received notice of final acceptance of this project from the NYCTA. The Company contends defective structural installation by the Company’s steel subcontractor caused or was a causal factor of the brick facade failure. The Company has tendered its claim to the NYCTA OCIP and to Chartis Claims, Inc. (“Chartis”), its insurance carrier. Coverage was denied in January 2011. The OCIP and general liability carriers have filed a declaratory relief action in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company seeking court determination that no coverage is afforded under their policies. In mid-February 2012, the Company filed a third-party action against certain underwriters (“Lloyd’s”). In mid-November 2012, the Court granted Chartis’s and Lloyd’s respective motions for summary judgment without oral argument. The Company is appealing those orders. The parties have agreed to discuss settlement and are engaging in Second Circuit Court of Appeals mediation process. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. Brightwater Matter In 2006, the Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division of King County (“King County”), as Owner, and Vinci Construction Grands Projects/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, Joint Venture (“VPFK”), as Contractor, entered into a contract to construct the Brightwater Conveyance System and tunnel sections in Washington State. Frontier-Kemper, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is a 20% minority partner in the joint venture. In April 2010, King County filed a lawsuit alleging damages in the amount of $74 million, plus costs, for VPFK’s failure to complete specified components of the project in the King County Superior Court, State of Washington. Shortly thereafter, VPFK filed a counterclaim in the amount of approximately $75 million, seeking reimbursement for additional costs incurred as a result of differing site conditions, King County’s defective specifications, for damages sustained on VPFK’s tunnel boring machines (“TBM”), and increased costs as a result of hyperbaric interventions. VPFK’s claims related to differing site conditions, defective design specifications, and damages to the TBM were presented to a Dispute Resolution Board (“DRB”). King County amended the amount sought in its lawsuit to approximately $132 million. In August 2011, the DRB generally found that King County was liable to VPFK for VPFK’s claims for encountering differing site conditions, including damages to the TBM, but not on VPFK’s alternative theory of defective specifications. From June through August 2012, each party filed several motions for summary judgment on certain claims and requests in preparation for trial, which were heard and ruled upon by the Court. The Court granted and denied various requests of each party related to evidence and damages. Trial started in early September 2012. In December 2012, a jury verdict was received in favor of King County in the amount of $155.8 million and a verdict in favor of VPFK in the amount of $26.3 million. In late April 2013, the Court ruled on post-trial motions and ordered VPFK’s sureties to pay King County’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $14.7 million. All other motions were denied. VPFK will likely pay the verdict amount and the associated fees in the second quarter of 2013. VPFK will appeal if the parties are unable to reach a settlement. The ultimate financial impact of King County’s lawsuit is not yet specifically determinable. In the fourth quarter of 2012, management developed a range of possible outcomes and has recorded a charge to income and a contingent liability of $5.0 million in accrued expenses. In developing a range of possible outcomes, management considered the jury verdict, continued litigation and potential settlement strategies. Management determined that there was no estimate within the range of possible outcomes that was more probable than the other and recorded a liability at the low end of the range. Estimating and recording future outcomes of litigation proceedings require significant judgment and assumptions about the future, which are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. If a final recovery turns out to be materially less favorable than our estimates, this may have a significant impact on the Company’s financial results. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. 156 Stations Matter In December 2003, Five Star Electric Corporation (“FSE”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into an agreement with the Prime Contractor Transit Technologies, L.L.C (“Transit”), a Consortium member of Siemens Transportation Transit Technologies, L.L.C (“Siemens”), to assist in the installation of new public address and customer information screens system for each of the 156 stations for the New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) as the owner. Work on the project commenced in early 2004 and is substantially complete. In June 2007, FSE submitted a Demand for Arbitration against Transit to terminate FSE’s subcontract due to: the execution of a Cure Agreement between the NYCTA, Siemens and Transit, which amended FSE’s rights under the Prime Contract; Transit’s failure to provide information and equipment to allow work to progress according to the approved schedule, and Transit’s failure to tender payment in excess of a year. In June 2012, the arbitration panel awarded FSE a total of approximately $11.9 million to be paid within 45 days, and Transit’s claims were denied. FSE filed a motion to confirm arbitration award in District Court in July 2012. In late August 2012, Transit Technologies filed a cross petition to vacate the award. In November 2012, the Court granted FSE’s petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied Transit Technologies’ cross-petition to vacate the award. In late February 2013, the Court affirmed FSE’s award and entered judgment in the amount of $12.3 million including award, costs and interest. FSE will pursue its bond claim to recover judgment. The eventual resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration