Banks and other secured lenders are going to experience more losses, and larger losses, on small and mid-market loans because fewer businesses are eligible to be a “small business debtor” in bankruptcy and to use Subchapter V of Chapter 11 to reorganize their debts and get a fresh start. From March 2020 until June 21, 2024, businesses with up to $7.5 million in undisputed debt (plus an unlimited amount of disputed debt) were eligible to pursue a financial restructuring as a “small business debtor” operating under the auspices of a federal bankruptcy court.  On June 21, 2024, the definition of a small business debtor changed, and the maximum debt amount for a “small business debtor” dropped from $7.5 million to $3,024,725.  I have seen several articles and blog posts decrying this change from the perspective of debtors and bankruptcy professionals. As someone who typically looks at a bankruptcy case from a creditor’s lawyer perspective, I am concerned that this change will hurt banks and other secured lenders in the middle market. 

A small business debtor enjoys advantages under the Bankruptcy Code that are not available to companies with higher debt loads. First and foremost, the small business debtor can elect to use Subchapter V of Chapter 11, which allows owners of a small business debtor to maintain their ownership in the reorganized company without having to meet all of the requirements imposed on larger businesses, such as paying unsecured creditors in full or making a sizable infusion of new money capital that can go towards paying old debts. Small business debtors can discharge their pre-bankruptcy debts by devoting a reasonable percentage of future revenue over three to five years towards satisfying those old debts.  Once the business devotes the court-approved portion of its revenue to paying past debts for the court-approved period of time, the business can start using all of its current revenue for ongoing operations, preparing for future growth, ownership distributions, or whatever else management decides. Having that light at the end of the three-to-five-year tunnel gives small business owners a strong incentive to do the hard work required to keep their distressed businesses moving forward instead of throwing in the towel and starting over.

A small business debtor in a Subchapter V bankruptcy case is much more likely to keep operating through the bankruptcy process, to make loan payments to its secured lender, and to succeed in confirming a plan of reorganization that pays its secured lender in full, than a company that has too much debt to use Subchapter V, all else being equal.  Statistics from the U.S. Trustee’s Office show that Subchapter V cases resulted in a confirmed plan 52% of the time during FY 2020-2023, more than double the percentage of small business debtors who were able to confirm a plan outside of Subchapter V.  This statistical difference makes logical sense because a Subchapter V case is much less expensive than a regular bankruptcy case.  There are no creditors’ committee counsel fees or United States Trustee fees to pay, which can be huge savings when compared to a regular bankruptcy case. The lower burn rate of a Subchapter V case, as compared to a regular Chapter 11 case, helps a debtor have enough cash to make payments on its secured debt through the life of the case. Receiving regular payments from an operating company may allow the secured lender to avoid further downgrading the credit or devoting more of its capital to loss reserves.  That is a major boon to secured lenders, especially banks. Further, bankruptcy law allows the debtor’s attorneys and other professionals in a Subchapter V case to be paid for their work over time, including after the case is confirmed; in a regular Chapter 11 case, all professionals must be paid at plan confirmation, which is too big of a hurdle for some businesses to get over. I have seen plenty of situations where a company in bankruptcy had positive operating cash flow, but its bankruptcy case failed because the cash flow was not positive enough to cover all the expenses required to confirm a plan of reorganization in the regular Chapter 11 process.

Borrowers in distress who can see a light at the end of the tunnel are more likely to keep operating, to keep generating revenue, and to keep making payments to their secured lenders. Distressed businesses that would have qualified for a Subchapter V case before June 21, 2024, but do not qualify today, are going to have a much harder time seeing a light at the end of their tunnel. I am concerned that shrinking Subchapter V eligibility will lead to more businesses either failing in regular Chapter 11 cases or forgoing bankruptcy altogether and simply handing their lenders the keys to their collateral.  The drastic cut in the number of businesses eligible for Subchapter V will make matters worse, not better, for secured lenders.

On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo[1] definitively overturned Chevron deference[2], and held that, when reviewing agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, courts “must exercise their independent judgment” and “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”[3]

Chevron deference, based on the Court’s decision in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,[4] laid out a procedure for courts to follow in cases involving judicial review of agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It involved a two-step analysis. In “step one,” a court would consider “whether Congress ha[d] directly spoken to the precise question at issue” in its statutes delegating power to the relevant agency.[5] If unambiguous language did answer the question at issue, that language controlled. However, Chevron articulated a second step if the answer to “step one” was “no” — i.e., if “the statute [was] silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue” in the case.[6] In this context, a court would be required to defer to the agency’s construction of the relevant statute if that construction was “permissible.”[7] Such deference was required even if the court, using its own interpretive ability, would have construed the statute differently. The decision was justified on the ground of agency expertise in technical regulatory schemes and on a principle of judicial deference to the Executive Branch.

In the recently decided case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), the Court reversed Chevron and called for courts to reassume their role as interpreters of the law.[8] Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a six-justice majority, criticized Chevron for fostering “unwarranted instability in the law,” creating “an eternal fog of uncertainty” for those attempting to plan around agency action, and for becoming “an impediment, rather than an aid, to accomplishing the basic judicial task of saying what the law is.”[9] The Court found that Chevron was incompatible with the APA because it requires reviewing courts to “decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.”[10] Under the APA and the new precedent established by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright, “agency interpretation of statutes… are not entitled to deference.”[11]

What this means in practice is that a court is not required to give weight to an agency’s interpretation and must instead “exercise independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions.”[12] But courts may still rely on agency expertise in exercising that independent judgment under other deference doctrines, such as so called, “Skidmore Deference.”[13] In fact, SCOTUS frequently cited the principles of Skidmore in its opinion, including that agencies can supply “a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.”[14]

Chevron deference focused on an agency’s statutory authority and did not expressly address the level of deference owed to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. The difference is important. For instance, now, a Court is not required to provide Chevron deference to the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) interpretation of a Clean Air Act provision in the promulgation of a regulation or otherwise. However, this decision does not address the level of deference owed to EPA’s interpretation of its own regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act. Under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, those types of regulatory actions are considered, generally, under the arbitrary and capricious standard.[15]

In any case, the Loper decision is a death knell to prescribed agency deference in statutory interpretation and clearly signals that courts should serve as a check on agency authority.

[1] 603 U.S. ____ (2024).

[2] “Chevron deference” is the term used to describe the framework historically used by reviewing courts and was established with the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (2024).

[3] Loper Bright, slip op. at 35.

[4] 467 U. S. 837 (2024).

[5] 467 U. S. at 842.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] The case is a review of a D.C. Circuit decision. A group of commercial fishing companies challenged a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires fishing vessels to be accompanied by a paid regulatory compliance monitor. The rule is based on a provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which states that federal regulators have the authority to place “observers” on fishermen’s boats. But the Act is silent on who should pay for the costs of the observers. The D.C. circuit found in a 2-1 opinion that although the statute is ambiguous, the agency’s interpretation of the statute to require the fisher cover the cost of the observer was ‘reasonable’ under Chevron.

[9] Loper Bright, slip op. at 32-33.

[10] 5 U.S.C. § 706, Id. at 14.

[11] Id. at 14-15.

[12] Id. at 16.

[13] Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S. Ct. 161, 164, 89 L. Ed. 124 (1944).

[14] Loper Bright, slip op. at 16, quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944).

[15] The federal APA instructs a reviewing court to hold unlawful and set aside an agency action if it meets one of six criteria, including that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” See 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A).

In this part three of our discussion of the foreclosure process on commercial real estate in Louisiana, we are detailing the procedures involved in ordinary process foreclosures in Louisiana. Foreclosing on collateral by ordinary process in Louisiana involves filing a civil suit against the mortgagor asking the court to recognize that the indebtedness is due and that the mortgage grants the creditor a valid lien on the mortgaged property.

The lawsuit will proceed as a normal lawsuit would, first with service of the petition on the defendant, with appropriate delays for answering. The suit will move through the discovery process to the summary judgment stage or through a trial on the merits. While the lawsuit is pending, the creditor may request that the court order the property to be sequestered (i.e., seized during the period of the lawsuit) by showing that the defendant has the power to conceal, dispose of, or waste the property or its revenues. La. C.C.P. Art. 3571. Essentially, this provides a mechanism for pre-judgment seizure of the property.

Once the creditor obtains a final judgment in its favor, and all deadlines for appeal have run, the creditor will need to request that the judgment be made executory and that the court grant an order for a writ of fieri facias (also known as a writ of fifa). The writ will be issued by the parish clerk of court and will direct the sheriff of that parish to seize and sell any property belonging to the defendant in the parish to satisfy the judgment. A positive benefit of utilizing the ordinary process foreclosure procedure is that the seizure and sale may include more than just the collateral property in the mortgage, as the judgment granted will grant the creditor a judicial mortgage on all property owned by the defendant within the parish.

Similar to the executory method of foreclosure, the seizing creditor will need to provide an appraisal of the property, if the property is being sold with appraisal and will need to provide notice of the sale to any other individual or entity with an interest in the property to be sold.

While ordinary process is not usually the preferred method for foreclosure in Louisiana, it provides a mechanism to seize and sell collateral property when the creditor cannot meet all of the requirements for use of executory process. This usually arises when the creditor may have acquired the loan and collateral from another lender and does not have the original note or instrument evidencing the debt, or if the mortgage does not contain a confession of judgment or is not in authentic form (i.e., executed before a notary and two witnesses).

An experienced lawyer can review a creditor’s loan documents to determine if ordinary process foreclosure the appropriate method to seek the seizure and sale of collateral property. Kean Miller works with lenders, servicers, and law firms from across the country on workouts, foreclosures, dation en paiement (read “deed in lieu”), note sales, and commercial bankruptcy cases. We would be glad to talk with you about how we may be able to help with your distressed credit situation.

Contracting parties use contractual indemnity provisions to customize risk allocation.  Indemnification clauses vary widely and are typically heavily negotiated; however, if the events and related damages covered under the indemnity are appropriate in nature and scope, parties can manage risk expectations and avoid disputes.  In order to select the appropriate indemnification scheme for any contract or project, it is vital to assess risk in terms of events and consequences, and the likelihood that those events or consequences will occur.

Under the indemnification regime known as “knock-for-knock”, each party contractually accepts liability for its own people and property regardless of any parties’ negligence or fault, including that of the indemnified parties.  In other words, each party’s indemnity undertaking amounts to, “My people, my property, my problem”, regardless of fault.

This amounts to a contractual agreement replacing the default rule at law which would otherwise make each party liable for its own negligence or fault. Essentially, a knock-for-knock indemnification regime bases liability on ownership or control, rather than negligence or fault.

This arrangement can be attractive for multiple reasons.  First, because it avoids the complications of determining proportionate fault among the parties, it should reduce legal costs.  This is particularly important where there are numerous parties present (with their respective personnel and property) at a project site, performing their respective services in close physical proximity to one another.

Second, if the knock-for-knock indemnification regime is consistently applied across all contracts for work on a single project, a single indemnitor should indemnify and defend all the parties against whom a claim is made, which reduces the litigation costs related to that claim.

Exclusions to the “regardless of fault” concept within a knock-for-knock regime are often used for the purpose of excluding claims arising from particularly egregious behavior.  Gross negligence and willful misconduct are commonly excluded for this reason, sometimes to conform to the public policy of some states, and also because such claims may not be insurable by the indemnitor.  For the same reasons, parties sometimes exclude claims that arise out of the sole negligence of the indemnified party.

A knock-for-knock regime is likely not desirable for contracts where there is no common project site, as the parties’ people and property are not likely to cause harm to one another.  It is also not desirable for contracts where the risks to one party’s people and property are significantly greater or lesser than the risks to the other party’s people and property, for example where a contractor enters a project site with limited personnel and property to perform very dangerous work for a large and valuable facility with many employees and other contractors present.

If a knock-for-knock regime is used, it is extremely important to ensure that the same knock-for-knock regime is used in all of the contracts of every contractor present at the project site.  This is vital to ensure that every party at the site ultimately takes sole responsibility for claims for injury to its people and damages to its property regardless of fault.  Any inconsistencies in those indemnification regimes could lead to a party being left holding the bag for injury to people other than its own and damages to property of others, which is not the desired goal of a knock-for-knock regime.

It is also important to understand and comply with state law requirements and limitations regarding knock-for-knock regimes.  Because a knock-for-knock regime, by its nature, requires each party to indemnify the other party for certain claims regardless of fault, including the indemnified party’s own negligence, some states require such indemnification provisions to be expressly stated in a conspicuous manner in the contract.  Also, some states have anti-indemnity statutes which prohibit certain types of contracts from requiring one party to indemnify another party for liabilities caused by the indemnified party’s own negligence.  These anti-indemnity statutes most commonly apply to contracts involving motor carrier transportation, construction, and oilfield work.  There are ways to bring knock-for-knock indemnity schemes into compliance with such anti-indemnity statutes, often through the use of insurance.  Parties should consult their legal counsel to ensure compliance, as these laws can be somewhat complicated to maneuver.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled today in Daniel Bennett v. Demco Energy Services, et al., 2023-CC-01358 (La. 5/10/24), 2024 WL ***, a claim for defense and indemnity under a Master Services Agreement filed before a judicial finding of liability or loss is not premature. The Court explained “[w]e hold that a claim for indemnity raised during the pendency of the litigation and before a finding of liability is not premature….in light of our ruling today, to the extent any prior jurisprudence can be interpreted otherwise, we now clarify that such a claim for indemnity is not prohibited before a liability adjudication.” Bennett, 2023-CC-01358 (La. 5/10/24), 2024 WL ***, at *4-5.

The Court reversed the First Circuit Court of Appeal’s previous ruling which had granted an exception of prematurity and dismissed without prejudice a cross claim filed by Cox Communications, LLC against Cable Man, Inc. finding a cause of action for defense and indemnity was not ripe prior to a determination of damages owed and an actual loss sustained by an indemnitee. Bennett was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

While there is a potential for an application for rehearing to be filed within fourteen days with the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Bennett ruling allowing the assertion of defense and indemnity before a finding of liability will have important implications on the timing of assertions of these claims in the context of construction litigation and beyond.

  • Link to May 10, 2024 Ruling of Louisiana Supreme Court in 2023-CC-01358:

23-1358.CC.OPN.pdf (lasc.org)

  • Link to Reversed September 11, 2023 Ruling of Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal in 2023 CW 0581:

2023 CW 0581 Decision Writ.pdf (la-fcca.org)

On April 23, 2024, by a vote of 3-2 along party lines, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted to approve a final rule effectively banning employers from using non-compete agreements, with a few limited exceptions. The measure reflects an unprecedented effort by the FTC to expand its rule-making authority. The final rule “shall supersede” all state laws, regulations, orders, and interpretations regarding non-competes, unless the state laws afford more protection to employees. Whether the rule will survive legal challenges remains unclear, but as the legal landscape concerning non-competes continues to shift, employers should cautiously review any non-compete clauses going forward and not make any major changes to their current practices just yet.

The rule is a sweeping ban on all new non-competes with workers of all levels. A non-compete clause is broadly defined by the FTC as “a term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from

1. seeking or accepting work in the United States with a different person where such work would begin after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition; or

2. operating a business in the United States after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition.”

The FTC stated that whether a prohibition constitutes a “non-compete clause” is a “fact-specific inquiry.” For example, a non-solicitation clause, if sufficiently broad, could fall under the FTC’s definition of a prohibited non-compete clause. The FTC did clarify, however, that a “garden leave” provision, where an employee receives the same total annual compensation while employed by the employer, is not considered a non-compete.

The application of this prohibition extends to all “workers,” which the FTC broadly defined as including employees, independent contractors, interns, and volunteers. The rule excluded from this prohibition non-competes between franchisors and franchisees, non-competes related to the sale of a business, as well as workers for non-profits, including many workers in the healthcare industry.

The FTC’s rule is scheduled to go into effect 120 after the rule is published in the Federal Register, so the rule is not yet effective. As written, the rule allows existing non-competes to remain in place only for senior executives; however, The FTC narrowly defined a “senior executive” as a worker in a “policy-making position” earning more than $151,164 annually. Those identified in “policy-making positions” include a company’s president, CEO, or a similarly situated individual. Other officers, such as vice presidents, must hold responsibilities that afford them the final authority to make policy decisions that control significant aspects of the business. The FTC excluded from this definition individuals who have the final authority to make decisions over subsidiaries of the business but not over the business as a whole.

Should the rule become final and effective, most notably, employers will be required to provide notice to non-senior executive workers with existing non-competes stating that the non-compete agreement will no longer be enforced. This notice must be provided to both current and former workers by the effective date of the final rule.

The FTC received over 26,000 public comments when it first proposed this rule in January of 2023. So, unsurprisingly, legal challenges immediately began following the FTC’s 3-2 vote in favor of the rule. Ryan LLC, a tax service firm, filed the first legal challenge to the FTC rule on the same day it was announced, arguing the FTC’s lacked the authority to enact the rule. The US Chamber of Commerce, a critic of the rule from its initial proposal, filed a lawsuit the following day in Federal District Court in Tyler, Texas, along with the Business Roundtable, and other trade groups.

Employers should adopt a wait-and-see approach until there is further clarity on the rule’s legal challenges. And even if the FTC’s rule survives legal challenge, the rule’s scope will inevitably be subject to litigation that tests the contours of the rule.

Today, April 30, 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) revised its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures to revise categorical exclusions for upgrading and rebuilding powerlines and for solar photovoltaic systems. Under the new rulemaking, environmental reviews will not automatically be required for projects related to solar installations. The rulemaking also adds a categorical exclusion for certain energy storage systems and adds flexibility for power grid powerline relocation.

A categorical exemption (“CX”) is applicable where a federal agency, including the DOE, has concluded that a proposed project or action does not have a significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an environmental assessment (EA) nor an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required.[1] Once a CX is promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking, it is added to an Appendix that includes the relevant requirements for the specific CX and other requirements applicable to all CXs.

One of the primary changes made by the rulemaking is the removal of a land area limitation currently in place for solar projects. The current CX for solar projects excludes the installation, modification, operation, and removal of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, but only if the project is located within a previously disturbed or developed area comprising less than 10 acres.[2] However, the new rule removes this 10-acre limit, making the exclusion available to larger projects.

DOE regulations also require that projects comply with additional requirements, known as “integral elements,” in order to be eligible for a CX. These conditions apply to any CX, including the CX for solar projects. Under these additional requirements, projects must not:

  • threaten a violation of applicable environment, safety, and health requirements;
  • require siting and construction or major expansion of waste storage, disposal, recovery, or treatment facilities;
  • disturb hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that preexist in the environment such that there would be uncontrolled or unpermitted releases;
  • have the potential to cause significant impacts on environmentally sensitive resources [1]; or
  • involve governmentally designated noxious weeds or invasive species, unless certain conditions are met.[3]

DOE received comments to the proposed rule raising concerns about impacts of solar projects on wildlife and habitat. In response to those concerns, DOE added a condition that a proposed project must be “consistent with applicable plans for the management of wildlife and habitat, including plans to maintain habitat connectivity” in order to qualify for a CX.

The final rule will go into effect on May 30. The full version of the final rule can be viewed here.

[1] See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(d).

[2] 10 C.F.R. Part 1021, Appx. B, at § B5.16, available at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-X/part-1021.

[3] 10 C.F.R. Part 1021, Appx. B.

Last month, a federal district court in Alabama ruled that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) is unconstitutional.[1] The CTA, which took effect on January 1, 2024, requires an estimated 32 million entities to report personal information about their beneficial owners to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The CTA aims to assist federal law enforcement in combatting money laundering and other financial crimes carried out through anonymous shell companies.

Specifically, on March 1, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama concluded that the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on Congress’s power and enjoined the U.S. Treasury Department and FinCEN from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs in that case. The issue before the Court concerned whether Congress has the constitutional power to regulate millions of entities and their owners upon corporate formation under state law. The Court answered in the negative—at least for the plaintiff entities.

The government argued that the CTA falls within Congress’s broad power to regulate commerce, oversee foreign affairs and national security, and impose taxes and related regulations. However, the Court held that the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on the legislative branch and lacks a sufficient nexus to any enumerated power to be a necessary and proper means of achieving Congress’s stated policy goals.

Subsequently, on March 11, 2024, the U.S. Justice Department filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Following the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, the case will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What does this mean for your company?

The Court’s ruling only prevents FinCEN from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs in the case. While this litigation is ongoing, FinCEN has indicated that it will continue to implement the CTA while complying with the Court’s order. Companies that were not a member of the National Small Business Association as of March 1, 2024, or a plaintiff in the case should assume that the recent ruling has no effect on its reporting obligations under the CTA.

For existing companies formed prior to January 1, 2024, the deadline to file beneficial owner reports is January 1, 2025. The filing deadline for companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, is 90 days after the company received notice of its formation. For now, companies which are not exempt from the CTA should still assume that they must comply with their respective filing deadline.

Should you have any questions about whether your company is subject to the CTA, please feel free to reach out to us.

[1] National Small Business United, d/b/a the National Small Business Association v. Yellen, No. 22-CV-1448 (N.D. Ala.).

Words are powerful. Being acutely aware of word choice and precise language in contracts is key to a successful agreement. Even in the world of construction, words matter as shown by the recent Louisiana Supreme Court case, Gustavo Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects—A Professional Architectural Corporation, et al., 2023-0928 (La. 3/22/24), 2024 WL 1229219, — So.3d. — (2024). In Gustavo Bonilla, the Louisiana Supreme Court held no duty exists for an architect or contract administrator to protect against injury of a subcontractor’s employee, relying upon the Louisiana Civil Code for contract interpretation.

In this case, the City of New Orleans (“NOLA”) entered into a construction contract with a general contractor, Tuna Construction, LLC (“Tuna”) to renovate a multiservice center; this construction contract contained attachments including NOLA’s General Conditions. Tuna then subcontracted with Meza Services, Inc. (“Meza”) for demolition services. NOLA separately entered into a Design Agreement with Verges Rome Architects (“VRA”) as a consultant for “professional design and contract administration services.” Id., 2024 WL 1229219, at *1. VRA also retained an engineering consultant, Morphy Makofsky, Inc. (“MMI”), on the project. When construction ensued at the project, an employee of sub-subcontractor Meza, Mr. Bonilla, was injured on the second floor of the building when a large concrete vault structure collapsed during demolition.

The injured worker of the sub-subcontractor filed suit against the architect, VRA, and MMI, alleging “negligence in preparation and approval of the design plans and specifications, the failure to design and/or require support for the area being demolished, and the failure to monitor and supervise the execution of the plans to ensure safety at the job site.” Id., 2024 WL 1229219 at *2. VRA was granted summary judgment by the trial court by arguing that under relevant contractual provisions, it owed no duty to oversee, supervise, or maintain the construction site or the worker’s safety. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed “inferring a duty from contractual provisions relating to required site visits and reporting deviations from the contract.” Id.

In reversing the appellate court and upholding the trial court’s decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized “the duty owed to an employee of a contractor by an engineer or architect is determined by the express provisions of the contract between the parties.” Id. Relying upon Louisiana Civil Code articles 1983, 2045, and 2046, the Court held that the clear and unambiguous language of the General Conditions and Design Agreement dictated that VRA owed no duty to the sub-subcontractor’s employee, Mr. Bonilla. Id., 2024 WL 1229219 at *6. While noting that Section F(5) of the Design Agreement required the architect to make weekly visits, the purpose was to ensure that progress and work was proceeding per the Specifications. Further, the Court focused upon Section 2.3 of the General Conditions stating “undertaking the periodic visits and observations by [Architect] or his associates shall not be construed as supervision of actual construction.” Id., 2024 WL 1229219, at *7. The Court recognized that safeguards required of the General Contractor in the General Conditions for safety and strength of scaffolding, staging, hoisting equipment and temporary shorting further supported that the architect was not liable for a breach of any duty to the subcontractor’s employee. Id., 2024 WL 1229219 at *8. The result of Gustavo Bonilla aligns with common sense and typical expectations, that the contractor, not design professionals are customarily responsible for safety and for their means and methods.

23-0928.C.OPN.pdf (lasc.org)

Media outlets around Louisiana recently reported on a new program from the Louisiana Workforce Commission pursuant to which employers have the opportunity to report job applicants who are either no-shows for job interviews or who turn down job offers. Here are links to stories from WAFB in Baton Rouge, KTBS in Shreveport, KNOE in Monroe, KATC in Lafayette, and KPLC in Lake Charles.

Employers can submit these reports electronically through the Louisiana Workforce Commission website. Here are the two links to electronic reporting portals within the Louisiana Workforce Commission website.

To receive unemployment benefits, an unemployed person must seek suitable work while receiving benefits. Under this reporting program, the Louisiana Workforce Commission can investigate an unemployment recipient’s job-seeking efforts, and if the recipient has declined job interviews or job offers, the recipient may lose their unemployment benefits. This is a new program aimed at helping employers who are having difficulty filling job openings. The future will tell if the program meets its goal.