Posts By: Gregory Cokinos

Marc Young Re-Elected to Second Term as a Director of the FDCC

Cokinos | Young Founding Principal Marc Young was re-elected for his second term as a Director of the FDCC (Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel). This is Marc’s second term as a Director. Marc heads the firm’s Tort Litigation Section which deals principally with the defense of corporations and individuals sued for claims involving personal injury and property damage. Marc handles a wide variety of claims ranging from product liability, construction defects, premises liability, commercial disputes, and professional liability. Marc is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law and he has tried over 100 cases in state and federal court, arbitrated 12 construction cases, and continues to try and arbitrate a significant number of cases each year while remaining active within the defense bar by writing, speaking and chairing important committees and subcommittees.

About the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Founded in 1936, the FDCC is composed of recognized leaders in the legal community who have achieved professional distinction.  It is dedicated to promoting knowledge, fellowship, and professionalism of its members as they pursue the course of a balanced justice system and represent those in need of a defense in civil lawsuits.

Pat Wielinski Authors Article as to Dangers of Breach of Contract Endorsements

The addition of a breach of contract endorsement to a contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy significantly reduces the scope of coverage available for construction defect claims. Pat Wielinski’s most recent article as to recent Texas case law on that issue and how to mitigate the risk is addressed in “Beware the Stunted CGL: Breach of Contract Endorsements” published as Expert Commentary on IRMI.com, the website of International Risk Management Institute. You can find the article at https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/cgl-breach-of-contract-endorsements.

If you would like additional information, don’t hesitate to contact Pat.

Michael Osborne Named a 2020 Northern California Super Lawyer

Michael C. Osborne

Cokinos | Young Principal Michael Osborne has been included on the 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers list by Thomson Reuters for Personal Injury-Defense and Business Litigation. Michael has received this recognition every year since 2013. This distinction is held by less than five percent of Northern California lawyers. 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.

Cokinos Attorneys Secure Significant Appellate Ruling

Cokinos Attorneys Karen Landinger, Roland Gonzales, Javier Duran, and Kyle Zunker secured a significant appellate ruling last week that will have far-reaching benefits for contractors in Texas.  In its memorandum opinion, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court abused its discretion by refusing to compel Nationwide to arbitration with a Roofing Company even though Nationwide did not sign an arbitration agreement.  In its opinion, the Court ruled that because Nationwide was seeking subrogation, it stepped into the shoes of the insured and was thus limited and bound to the rights of the insured which included arbitration.  The ruling was the second favorable appellate ruling in the case after the Cokinos team obtained mandamus relief compelling the trial court to rule on the Roofing Company’s motion to compel arbitration.  In re Roland’s Roofing Co., Inc., 13-19-00469-CV, 2019 WL 5444399 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 23, 2019, no pet.).

Full text of the Court’s opinion can be found at Roland’s Roofing Co., Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 13-19-00580-CV, 2020 WL 3478658, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 25, 2020, no pet. h.)

Read the full article on Law 360.

Javier Duran
Roland F. Gonzales
Karen L. Landinger
Kyle A. Zunker

Congratulations to Karen Landinger for Being Rated AV Preeminent

Karen L. Landinger

Congratulations to Karen Landinger for being rated AV Preeminent, the highest possible rating in both legal ability & ethical standards. This is given to attorneys who are ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise, communication skills, and ethical standards by their peers. The AV Preeminent Rating is the pinnacle of professional excellence earned through a strenuous Peer Review Rating process that is managed and monitored by the world’s most trusted legal resource, Martindale Hubbell.

For more than 130 years, Martindale-Hubbell has been evaluating attorneys for their strong legal ability and high ethical standards through a Peer Review Rating system. Prior to the 1887 edition of Martindale’s American Law Directory, which was the first publication to provide such ratings to attorneys, there was no way of truly knowing if the lawyer you were considering to do business with was trustworthy, ethical, or skilled in the legal field.

Today – Martindale-Hubbell continues to provide verified ratings for attorneys based not only on their legal ability and ethical standards as judged by their peers but also based on reviews from their clients. While the criteria and format of the Peer Review Rating system have evolved since the 1800’s – the goal of Martindale-Hubbell ratings remains the same: to help keep the public informed when making the decision to do business with an attorney or law firm.

Leader in the Transactional Field Darrell W. Taylor Joins Cokinos | Young in Houston

Darrell Taylor Senior Counsel

We are pleased to welcome Darrell W. Taylor, a recognized leader in the transactional field, to STRUCTURE, Cokinos|Young’s transactional team, where he will be joining our Houston office as Senior Counsel.

Darrell is an accomplished and creative transactional attorney, who has served as an adviser and leader in his field for over 30 years. Darrell has extensive experience with supervising and documenting mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, and investment transactions, as well as debt and equity financing matters for both public and private companies.

“We are thrilled to have Darrell join our growing transactional team” said Cokinos|Young President and CEO Gregory Cokinos. Gregory adds: “Our value lies in our highly-skilled and integrated team within leading practices and working in a teamwork-focused culture. Darrell brings a wealth of knowledge and experience and will be a great contributor to our firm.”

Major Accomplishments:

Halliburton:  Acted as lead securities and financing lawyer for a series of related transactions for Halliburton, including debt and equity financings of over $3 billion to fund asbestos trusts for subsidiaries in Chapter 11 proceedings; followed by separation of KBR engineering, procurement and construction business and related subsidiaries; and KBR’s subsequent $2.4 billion initial public offering and tax-free split-off to shareholders

Pennzoil:  Supervised the legal representation of Pennzoil Company in reinvestment of $3 billion litigation settlement, including $215 million acquisition of Co-Enerco, $440 million investment in Burlington Resources, and $2.1 billion investment in Chevron; followed by:

  • $1.5 billion acquisition of oil and gas properties from Chevron,
  • Separation of Pennzoil upstream oil and gas business into PennzEnergy and subsequent $4.7 billion merger with Devon,
  • Going public transaction and $1.6 billion combination of Quaker State and Pennzoil downstream business to form Pennzoil-Quaker State and subsequent $1.8 billion divestiture to Shell Oil.

Please join us in welcoming Darrell to the firm!

Click here for Darrell’s Full Bio

10 Cokinos | Young Lawyers Listed in the 2020 Edition of Texas’ Best Lawyers®

Congratulations to the 10 Cokinos | Young lawyers listed in the 2020 Edition of Texas’ Best Lawyers®. Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected lawyer ranking service in the world. For almost 40 years, Best Lawyers has assisted those in need of legal services to identify the lawyers best qualified to represent them in distant jurisdictions or unfamiliar specialties. Best Lawyers lists are published in leading local, regional, and national publications across the globe.

Gregory M. Cokinos
Construction Law

Patrick J. Wielinski
Construction & Insurance Law

Stephanie L. O’Rourke
Construction Law

J. Parker Fauntleroy
Personal Injury Litigation

John C. Warren
Construction Law

Charles W. Getman
Construction Law

Shelly D. Masters
Construction Law

W. Patrick Garner
Construction Law

Roger D. Townsend
Appellate Practice

Dana Livingston
Appellate Practice

Stephanie O’Rourke Featured as a 2020 Best San Antonio Lawyer

Congratulations to Stephanie O’Rourke for being featured as a 2020 Best San Antonio Lawyer by Scene in San Antonio Magazine. Established in 1999, Scene in San Antonio Magazine has been San Antonio’s Premier City Publication for over 20 years.  Each year, Scene reviews submissions from peers for the Best Lawyer list and scores them based on multiple factors to determine the best lawyers in the city.  Stephanie was also ranked by Chambers on its 2020 list.  Chambers USA ranks the top lawyers and law firms across the United States.

Stephanie L. O’Rourke

Additional PPP Guidance: Some Clarity on Potential Audits and Penalties

The Small Business Administration (the “SBA”), in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, continues to release guidance in attempts to clarify certain provisions of the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”), established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”).  On May 13, the SBA updated its existing FAQs to provide some much needed clarity on potential penalties and/or audits for companies that already received funding under the PPP loan program. Notably, FAQ 46 provides a “safe harbor” for borrowers who received PPP loan funding in amounts less than $2 million.

The CARES Act suspends the traditional SBA loan requirement that borrowers must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere but does require all applicants to make a “good-faith” certification that their PPP loan request is necessary based on current “economic uncertainty” related to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Without any further initial guidance, a number of well-established, publicly traded companies received significant PPP funding resulting in multiple negative media reports and public scrutiny.  Due to such public outrage, the SBA and Department of the Treasury attempted to provide further guidance on what would – and would not – be considered a “good-faith certification” by updating the SBA FAQs on April 23, 2020.  In addition, on April 28, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced that any PPP applicant receiving $2 million or more in PPP loans will automatically be fully audited, while recipients of smaller PPP loans may be subject to audits, as well.  The SBA’s response raised more questions than answers and left borrowers (i) in doubt as to whether or not their specific situation met the “good-faith” standard, and (ii) concerned the additional guidance would lead to potential audits and penalties.

To further clarify the SBA’s interpretation of the “good-faith” certification, the SBA issued the following “safe harbor” as a portion of its recent May 13 guidance:

Any borrower that, together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of less than $2 million will be deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith. SBA has determined that this safe harbor is appropriate because borrowers with loans below this threshold are generally less likely to have had access to adequate sources of liquidity in the current economic environment than borrowers that obtained larger loans.”

Accordingly, borrowers who find themselves under the $2 million threshold can rest easier knowing they will not be subject to audits or penalties by the SBA in connection with their “good-faith” certification.  The SBA hopes this guidance will “promote economic certainty” so smaller borrowers can shift their focus toward their business and employees.  For PPP loans exceeding $2 million, the SBA will likely still audit such borrowers, but did emphasize that even such larger loans “may still have an adequate basis for making the required good-faith certification.”  The recent guidance also clarifies the procedure in the event the SBA ultimately determines a borrower fails to meet its good-faith certification standard.  If such a determination is made, the borrower will not be eligible for loan forgiveness, and the SBA will request full payment of the then outstanding balance.  If full payment is made, the SBA will not pursue further penalties or referrals against the borrower.

For those borrowers either (i) under the $2 million threshold, or (ii) determined by the SBA to have met the good-faith certification, the next step in the PPP process will be to begin the Loan Forgiveness Application published by the SBA on May 15.  The loan forgiveness aspect of the PPP is what initially attracted small businesses to the program promising forgiveness of borrowed funds so long as borrowers utilize PPP proceeds for payroll, business mortgage interest, rent and utilities.  Based on the previous track record of the SBA and Department of Treasury, borrowers should be on the lookout for additional materials, guidance and clarification with respect to PPP loan forgiveness over the coming weeks.

While many questions still remain and some are likely yet to arise in connection with the PPP, the recent guidance should at least allow the majority of borrowers to focus on the actual intent of the program: retaining and rehiring employees. This article was written by Alec Herzog, a member of STRUCTURE Cokinos, the transactional team of Cokinos | Young (principal office in Houston, Texas), under the leadership of Tiffany Melchers.

J. Shannon Gatlin

Alec C. Herzog

Texas Alternatives to In-Person Notarization: COVID-19 Orders and Existing Laws

To facilitate social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently issued two executive orders temporarily relaxing requirements for in-person notarization of certain documents.  The first order (the “Estate Planning Order”), issued on April 8, permits the “remote notarization” of certain estate-planning, advance-directive and probate documents.  The second order (the “Real Estate Order”), issued on April 27, allows remote notarization of real estate documents.  In each case, the remote-notarization process requires a Texas notary public (or “notary”) to participate by two-way videoconference (such as Skype, Zoom, or Microsoft Teams).  Although the two orders are similar, there are also important differences between them, as explained below.

In addition to these two temporary orders, there are other, permanent alternatives to in-person notarization available under Texas law.  They are also briefly discussed below.

Estate Planning Order.

The Estate Planning Order suspends certain statutes that would otherwise require in-person notarization for the following types of estate-planning, advance-directive and probate documents:

  • Self-proved will.
  • Durable power of attorney.
  • Medical power of attorney.
  • Directive to physician (the Texas term for a “living will”).
  • Oath of an executor, administrator or guardian.

The notary must participate by videoconference, and must verify the identity of the signer either by personal knowledge or a government-issued ID with the signer’s signature and photo.  The signer must then transmit the signed document to the notary by electronic means, such as email or fax, and the notary must notarize the document and transmit it back to the signer electronically.

There is an important caveat regarding the signing of a self-proved will.  (A “self-proved will” is simply a will that includes a “self-proving affidavit,” making it easier to probate after the signer’s death.)  Although the Estate Planning Order permits the remote notarization of a self-proved will, it does not relax the requirement that two witnesses be physically present at the signing (and themselves sign the will as witnesses).

The Estate Planning Order will remain in effect until terminated by the Governor, or until the Governor’s disaster declaration of March 13 (regarding COVID-19) is lifted or expires

Real Estate Order.

The Real Estate Order, issued on April 27, permits the remote notarization by videoconference of real estate documents, such as deeds and mortgages (known in Texas as deeds of trust).  The requirements for the notary to verify the signer’s identity are the same as those under the Estate Planning Order, except that the Real Estate Order also permits verification by a credible witness who personally knows both the signer and the notary.

The Real Estate Order imposes additional requirements not found in the Estate Planning Order:

  • Both the signer and the notary must be physically located in Texas during the videoconference, and they must orally affirm that fact. The signer must also state which documents are being signed, and the act of signing them must be close enough to the camera for the notary to see it clearly.  (A recording of the videoconference will be retained by the notary for two years.)
  • The document must contain language substantially similar to the following: “This notarization involved the use of two-way audio-video communication pursuant to the suspension granted by the Office of the Governor on April 27, 2020, under section 418.016 of the Texas Government Code.”
  • The most important difference between the two executive orders is the requirement in the Real Estate Order that the notary must notarize (sign, and stamp or seal) the originally-signed document – that is, the paper document containing the signer’s original, “wet-ink” signature. This requires the signer to physically send the originally-signed document to the notary by courier, mail or overnight carrier – rather than merely emailing or faxing it, as is permitted under the Estate Planning Order.  (The notarization will be deemed effective, however, at the date and time of the signing during the videoconference.)  After the notary has notarized the document, it then must be sent to the county clerk of the county where the real estate is located, to be filed and recorded in the county’s real property records.  Depending on whether the county permits e-filing of real estate documents, whether the notary is authorized to make such e-filings, and where the notary is located, there could easily be a one- or two-day delay (even using overnight delivery) between the original signing of the document and its filing in the county records.

The Real Estate Order is also limited in two important respects:

  • It suspends the Texas statute – Section 121.006(c)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code – that requires in-person notarization of documents by acknowledgment (and by “proof,” a rarely-used procedure). That statute is not limited to real estate documents.  But the Real Estate Order states that the suspension is “for the purpose of acknowledging real-estate instruments, by videoconference.”  In other words, the Real Estate Order presumably cannot be used for the remote notarization of any documents other than real estate documents.
  • Because the Real Estate Order only suspends the statute requiring in-person notarization by acknowledgment, it leaves in place statutes that require in-person notarization by other means. Although notarization “by acknowledgment” is the most common type of notarization – applicable to deeds, deeds of trust, easements and many other types of real estate documents – there are some real estate documents that must be “sworn to” before a notary, such as affidavits and declarations.  The distinction between these two types of notarization is subtle but important.  In a notarization “by acknowledgment,” the signer merely acknowledges to the notary that he or she signed the document.  In a “sworn” notarization, by contrast, the signer also swears to the notary that statements he or she made in the document (such as an affidavit) are true.

Because it only suspends in-person notarization of real estate documents by acknowledgment, therefore, the Real Estate Order is not available for real estate affidavits or declarations.  This means, for example, that the Real Estate Order does not permit remote notarization of a mechanic’s lien affidavit, which is the crucial document for perfecting a mechanic’s lien in Texas.

The Real Estate Order will remain in effect until the earlier of May 30, 2020, or the termination of the Governor’s COVID-19 disaster declaration of March 13.

Other alternatives to in-person notarization.

Texas law offers two other options for avoiding in-person notarization.  Although both are relatively new, they predate COVID-19 and will remain in place after the pandemic subsides.

Online notarization.

In 2018, Texas became one of the first states to permit remote “online notarization” of documents, by notaries who have been specially commissioned as an “online notary public.”  Like “remote notarization” under the two COVID-19 executive orders, it requires a two-way videoconference, and it has its own requirements for the verification of a signer’s identity.

“Online notarization” can be used for any type of notarization (including sworn as well as acknowledged documents), and any type of document.  In those respects it is considerably broader than the types of “remote notarization” authorized by the two Executive Orders.  On the other hand, “online notarization” requires a specially-commissioned “online notary public” and compliance with specific regulatory requirements.  In general, it is an option that has not been widely adopted in Texas.

The requirements for “online notarization,” including the special forms of acknowledgment and jurat that must be used, are set out in Sections 406.101 through 406.113 of the Texas Government Code and described in the Texas Secretary of State’s “online notary public” materials.

Unsworn declarations.

Texas had historically required that all affidavits and declarations be sworn to before a notary.  As discussed above, this is still the case for real estate affidavits and declarations, including mechanic’s lien affidavits, that require recordation in the county records.  (It is also the case for affidavits and declarations concerning personal property, if they require county recordation.)  As a result of statutory changes beginning in 2011, however, other types of affidavits and declarations – those not concerning real estate – can be signed without any notarization.  Instead, the signer can now simply sign a statement in the document declaring “under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.”  The full form of the statement – which must also include the signer’s full name, date of birth and address – can be found in Section 132.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  Although not expressly required, it would be prudent to consider stating somewhere in the document that it constitutes an “unsworn declaration” under such statute.

Alec C. Herzog

Philip M. Kinkaid

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

Read More