XML 29 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | (9) Commitments and Contingencies ﻿ The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and various forms of dispute resolution, and are contingently liable for commitments and performance guarantees arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, other activities inherent to the Company’s business may result in litigation or dispute resolution proceedings when there is a disagreement regarding a change in the scope of work and/or the price associated with that change. In accordance with ASC 606, the Company makes assessments of these types of disputes on a routine basis and estimates and records recovery related to these disputes at the most likely amount it expects to receive, as discussed further in Note 3, Revenue, and Note 4, Contract Assets and Liabilities. These assessments require judgments concerning matters such as litigation developments and outcomes, the anticipated outcome of negotiations and the estimated cost of resolving such disputes. In addition, because most contingencies are resolved over long periods of time, assets and liabilities may change in the future due to various factors. Management believes that, based on current information and discussions with the Company’s legal counsel, the ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. ﻿ Several matters are in the litigation and dispute resolution processes that include characteristics which management consider to be other than ordinary routine contract performance related issues. The following discussion provides a background and current status of such material matters. ﻿ Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Matter ﻿ The Company reconstructed the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Interchange (“LIE Project”) for the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”). The $130 million project was substantially completed in January 2004 and was accepted by NYSDOT as 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 NYSDOT is responsible. ﻿ In March 2011, the Company opened a case with the New York State Court of Claims against NYSDOT related to the LIE Project. In May 2011, 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 NYSDOT, which resulted in an amount of $0.5 million payable to the Company and formally closed out the project allowing the Company to re-file its claim. In March 2012, the Company filed its formal Verified Claim seeking $50.7 million in damages. In May 2012, NYSDOT served its answer and asserted counterclaims in the amount of $151 million alleging fraud in the inducement and punitive damages related to alleged violations of the disadvantaged business enterprise (“DBE”) requirements for the project. The Court subsequently ruled that NYSDOT’s counterclaims may only be asserted as a defense and offset to the Company’s claims and not as affirmative claims. In November 2014, the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the dismissal of NYSDO T’s affirmative counterclaims. In June 2018, following additional summary judgment motions, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss NYSDOT’s affirmative defenses, which eliminated the use of NYSDOT’s counterclaim of $151 million as a defense to the claims of the Company. In October 2018, NYSDOT filed a notice of appeal. A trial date for the appeal has not been set. ﻿ 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 consolidated financial statements at that time. ﻿ Fontainebleau Matter ﻿ Desert Mechanical, Inc. (“DMI”) and Fisk Electric Company (“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. ﻿ 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., 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. ﻿ 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 rela ting to certain priming liens, approximately $125 million was set aside from this sale that is available for distribution to satisfy the creditor claims based on seniority. At that time, the total estimated sustainable lien amount was 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. ﻿ In October 2013, a settlement was reached by and among the Statutory Lienholders and the other interested parties. The Bankruptcy Court appointed a mediator to facilitate the execution of that settlement agreement, but the parties were unable to settle. During the third quarter of 2017, DMI filed a motion seeking permission to file an action in Nevada to enforce the Company’s lien rights; the motion was granted by the Bankruptcy Court. ﻿ 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 consolidated financial statements at that time. ﻿ Westgate Planet Hollywood Matter ﻿ Tutor-Saliba Corporation (“TSC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was contracted to construct a timeshare 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. WPH 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. WPH revised the amount of their counterclaims to approximately $45 million. ﻿ Following multiple post-trial motions, final judgment was entered in this matter on March 20, 2014. TSC was awarded total judgment in the amount of $19.7 million on its breach of contract claim, which includes an award of interest up through the date of judgment, plus attorney’s fees and costs. WPH was awarded total judgment in the amount of $3.1 million on its construction defect claims, which includes interest up through the date of judgment. WPH and its Sureties have filed a notice of appeal. TSC has filed a notice of appeal on the defect award. In July 2014, the District Court ordered WPH to post an additional supersedeas bond on appeal, in the amount of $1.7 million, in addition to the lien release bond of $22.3 million, which increases the security up to $24.0 million. In May 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its ruling on the appeal by WPH and its Sureties. With only minor adjustments, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the District C ourt’s judgment, and following further proceedings in the District C ourt, the anticipated final recovery to the Company is estimated to exceed $20 million, including interest and recovery of certain attorneys’ fees and costs of which the Company collected more than $16 million in 2017. In December 2017 and in January 2018, the District Court issued several post-appeal orders confirming its previous rulings. Some of those matters have been appealed and are expected to be resolved in the first half of 2019. Once resolved, TSC will seek an order from the District Court seeking a remaining $4 million in interest and fees associated with the matter. ﻿ The Company does not expect the ultimate resolution of this matter to have a 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 consolidated financial statements at that time. ﻿ Five Star Electric Matter ﻿ In the third quarter of 2015, Five Star Electric Corp. (“Five Star”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 2011, entered into a tolling agreement (which has since expired) related to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (“USAO EDNY”). Five Star has been cooperating with the USAO EDNY since late June 2014, when it was first made aware of the investigation, and has provided information requested by the government related to its use of certain minority-owned, women-owned, small and disadvantaged business enterprises and certain of Five Star’s employee compensation, benefit and tax practices. ﻿ As of September 30, 2018, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the investigation and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss that Five Star or the Company may incur or the impact of the results of the investigation on Five Star or the Company. ﻿ Alaskan Way Viaduct Matter ﻿ In January 2011, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture between Dragados USA, Inc. and the Company, entered into a design-build contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) for the construction of a large diameter bored tunnel in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, also known as State Route 99. ﻿ The construction of the large diameter bored tunnel required the use of a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”). In December 2013, the TBM struck a steel pipe, installed by WSDOT as a well casing for an exploratory well. The TBM was damaged and was required to be shut down for repair. STP has asserted that the steel pipe casing was a differing site condition that WSDOT failed to properly disclose. The Disputes Review Board mandated by the contract to hear disputes issued a decision finding the steel casing was a Type I differing site condition. WSDOT has not accepted that finding. ﻿ The TBM was insured under a Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy (the “Policy”) with Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and a consortium of other insurers (the “Insurers”). STP submitted the claims to the Insurers and requested interim payments under the Policy. The Insurers refused to pay and denied coverage. In June 2015, STP filed a lawsuit in the King County Superior Court, State of Washington (“Washington Superior Court”) seeking declaratory relief concerning contract interpretation, as well as damages as a result of the Insurers’ breach of their obligations under the terms of the Policy. WSDOT is deemed a plaintiff since WSDOT is an insured under the Policy and had filed its own claim for damages. Hitachi Zosen (“Hitachi”), the manufacturer of the TBM, has also joined the case as a plaintiff for costs incurred to repair the damages to the TBM. In September 2018, rulings received on pre-trial motions effectively limited potential recovery under the Policy for STP, W SDOT and Hitachi. The Company intends to appeal these court orders. To the extent we are unable to recover damages under the Policy, we can still seek recovery against WSDOT and Hitachi as described in the next paragraph. Trial has been continued from October 2018 to February 2019. ﻿ In March 2016, WSDOT filed a complaint against STP in Thurston County Superior Court for breach of contract alleging STP’s delays and failure to perform and declaratory relief concerning contract interpretation. STP filed its answer to WSDOT’s complaint and filed a counterclaim against WSDOT and Hitachi. Trial has been continued from April 2019 to October 2019. ﻿ As of September 30, 2018, the Company has concluded that the potential for a material adverse financial impact due to the Insurers’ denial of coverage and WSDOT’s legal actions is neither probable nor remote, and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. With respect to STP’s claims against the Insurers, WSDOT and Hitachi, management has included an estimate of the total anticipated recovery, concluded to be both probable and reliably estimable, in receivables or costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recoveries vary from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time.

X
- References No definition available. + 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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration