Latest Updates         (Previous Updates)

Zeiger Crawler Crane Found in
Kelly Tractor Yard

March 9, 2010

At least one Link-Belt 298 crawler crane with Zeiger Crane Rental, Inc. company markings was recently found stored in the back lot of Kelly Tractor Company’s West Palm Beach yard.

Florida Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) records show that Kelly Tractor filed a UCC as the secured party, or creditor, with Zeiger affiliate Atlantic Leasing, Inc. (the debtor) in September 2009. The cited collateral for the transaction was a Link-Belt 238 Crawler.

A broader examination of the equipment collateral cited in UCC filings involving Zeiger Crane Rental and its affiliate companies reveals that Zeiger has acquired at least two Link-Belt 298 crawlers. Both crawlers, according to the UCC records, were financed by Financial Federal Credit, Inc.

At this time it is unclear why the Zeiger crawler crane is being stored in the Kelly yard. It is also unclear at this time if additional Zeiger equipment is being kept at this location.

Learn more about Zeiger Crane Rental’s equipment in the Zeiger Finances page.

Bankruptcy Court Rules in Favor of Comansa, Litigation against General Crane
to Continue in Texas

March 8, 2010

Linden-Comansa America, LLC will resume its lawsuit against General Crane USA in Harris County, Texas court, after a nearly three month hiatus due to General’s bankruptcy.

Last Thursday the judge for the Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) Chapter 11 case granted tower crane manufacturer Linden-Comansa a relief from the automatic stay that, until now, had suspended pending litigation against the bankrupt company. In accordance with Comansa’s wishes, the ruling stated: “Linden may continue and conclude to a final judgment determining of the ownership of the parts in the litigation commenced in the 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.”

As covered on CraneWatchdog.com, Linden-Comansa America filed its Harris County suit against General Crane in mid-November, alleging that General had stolen nearly one-million dollars in leased tower crane parts and failed to pay roughly $1.5 million more in contractual fees. Comansa received a writ of sequestration and, accompanied by county Constable agents, seized about $600,000 worth of crane parts from General’s yard. The parts remain in Harris County custody.

Following General’s bankruptcy, Comansa filed its motion to continue the case in Texas. General Crane opposed the move. Their chief argument for keeping the dispute in the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction was the following:

It may be possible that some or all of the Debtor's property sequestered in the Texas state court action is subject to liens by one or more of the Debtor's lenders, and is thus important to the administration of this estate.

General Crane even retained an outside law firm Baker Botts, LLP at $800 an hour to advocate for the transfer of the Comansa suit from Texas to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

In the bankruptcy court’s final analysis, the judge stated:

If this property was, as Linden contends, stolen from the Cranes, then it is not property of the estate. The Texas court is in a better position to make this determination, which is a question of Texas law.

Moreover, the court noted that it was more convenient to continue the case in Texas, as the crane parts, witnesses, and sheriff’s deputies are all located in the state. The judge also noted that since the alleged value of the sequestered parts ($600,000) comprises less than 1/100 of General Crane’s estate it comprised a negligible portion of the bankrupt estate.

The bankruptcy judge lastly commented on the repercussions for potential outcomes of the Texas lawsuit. If the Harris County court decides that the sequestered parts belong to Comansa then the ruling “shall be conclusive and binding upon the parties,” and “the inventory and parts shall in no way be considered property of [General’s] estate.”

On the other hand, if the Texas court rules in favor of General then the parts “shall be considered property of the estate and all further proceedings with regard to their disposition, and the rights of all parties with regard to the inventory shall be determined by this Court.”

Click here to learn more about the Comansa-General Crane dispute. Also review General Crane USA’s bankruptcy case at CraneWatchdog.com’s Bankruptcy Page.

General Crane “Surrenders” 11 Cranes to Caterpillar Financial

March 8, 2010

The judge in General Crane USA’s bankruptcy case recently granted Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation the right to repossess eleven cranes from General.

The judge’s order cites a February 16 court hearing, Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) and Caterpillar Financial reached an agreement where General would “surrender” ten Grove RT 760 Rough Terrain Cranes and one Manitowoc 12000 Crawler Crane. The list of Caterpillar collateral and the dates when they are available for repossession are available in the chart below:

In mid-January Caterpillar Financial filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in order to reclaim collateral from two sets of loans from General Crane, or seek adequate protection payments on those loans.

The first group of loans, originated by FCC Equipment Financing, Inc. (a lending division of Caterpillar) financed General’s purchase of the 10 Grove cranes and one Manitowoc crawler cited above, as well as two Alimak Scando hoists.

The second set of Caterpillar loans to General were actually originated by Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC. The collateral for those loans was five Linden-Comansa tower cranes.

The judge’s recent order grants Caterpillar a partial relief from the stay, allowing the financer to repo the collateral from the FCC loans – namely, the Grove cranes and the Manitowoc. In addition, the judge also ordered that General Crane “use its best efforts to locate and return to Caterpillar the missing parts related to the two Alimak lifts returned to Caterpillar pre-petition.”

The outcome for the Linden-Comansa cranes that Caterpillar claims as collateral remains unclear at this time. The court deferred its ruling on the tower cranes. Likely the deferral has to do with unresolved issues over the commingling of Linden-Comansa tower crane parts in General's fleet.

Keep up to date on General Crane USA’s Chapter 11 case in CraneWatchdog.com’s Bankruptcy News page.

Zachry Construction
Added to Beyel Customer Page

March 5, 2010

Today CraneWatchdog.com adds the first non-Florida based company to our Beyel Customers page. Beyel Brothers employees have confirmed that industry heavyweight Zachry Construction, based in San Antonio, TX, is a customer of Beyel Brothers.

Zachry Construction, which bills itself as “the largest direct-hire, merit-shop constructor in the United States,” has built some of the best known roads and buildings in the South, particularly in Texas. The company has also built US Embassies overseas. Our profile includes Safety, Litigation and Pension and Benefits information. The Zachry profile will be greatly expanded in the future, when we will add a section on Zachry’s tax lien history, and provide more information on the company’s litigation history.

By hiring Beyel Brothers, Zachry Construction contributes to the “race to the bottom” in the Florida crane industry. The IUOE urges Zachry, and all Beyel customers, to discontinue doing business with Beyel until they meet area standards for wages and benefits.

General Crane
January Operating Report Available

March 5, 2010

General Crane USA lost nearly $140,000 during the month of January, according to its latest operating report.

Company revenue (or receipts), at $1,013,522, was nearly identical to the previous month, however disbursements rose by over 20% to $1,152,303, due largely to increased expenditures on insurance, leases, and professional fees.

Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) leases property from Steven Retterath (the father of owner Jason Retterath), as well as a company named Republic Enterprises, LLC, which is co-owned by Jason Retterath and Jim Robertson. The $30,000 in professional fees is likely attributed to the financial advisor firm Morris Anderson.

Notably, General Crane cut payroll expenses by over 8% from December to January, despite the employee roster remaining relatively consistent (ranging from 122 to 125 workers during the time period). Owners Retterath’s and Robertson’s salaries remained unchanged at $21,154 per month.

General Crane’s lower than expected revenues could potentially hurt its ability to carry on operations.

Despite its bankrupt status, General Crane can continue to operate because it is authorized to use cash collateral to fund its business. General received the authorizations, approved by the judge on a monthly basis, on December 11, 2009 and on January 25, 2010.

For each authorization the company is required to submit a 25-day operating budget. Combined, the two above-listed budgets cover the entire month of January. And during that month, General Crane projected that it would collect $1,482,000 in cash receipts.

As noted above, for January General Crane actually generated receipts totaling only $1,013,522.

One of the stipulations in General Crane’s use of cash collateral is that its authorization will “terminate” in the occurrence of an “Event of Default.” Among the listed default events is if General Crane’s “Total Collections for any month falls below the budgeted amount of Total Collections by more than 10%.”

For the month of January, General Crane’s reported actual receipts are $468,478 (or 31.6%) below the budgeted mark, a potential default event.

The bankruptcy judge’s authorization allowing General Crane to use cash collateral, though, empowers the lenders (or creditors) to waive an event of default. The authorization further states: “Any and all controversies or disputes over the interpretation or performance of the terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be determined by this Court upon application or motion made by any of the Lenders, the Debtor or other parties-in-interest.”

For more information, go to General Crane USA’s Bankruptcy Page.

Bankruptcy Judge Authorizes Use of Cash Collateral for Lewis Crane

March 5, 2010

Yesterday afternoon the judge in the Lewis Crane bankruptcy case authorized the bankrupt company to use cash collateral for the period of March 1 to March 31, 2010.

According to the judge’s order, Lewis’ use of cash collateral is limited only to “approved expenses” listed on the budget below:

On the same day, March 4, that the judge issued his order, five secured creditors – Fifth Third Bank and Wachovia Financial Services, Inc., Key Equipment Finance, Inc., People’s Capital and Leasing Corp., and Sierra Equipment, Inc. – filed objections to the motion for Lewis to use cash collateral.

According to bankruptcy documents, Lewis owes approximately $24 million in outstanding debt to the objecting creditors (see chart below).

Two weeks ago, Fifth Third Bank and Wachovia filed a joint motion requesting that Lewis’ bankruptcy case be converted from a Chapter 11 (reorganization) to a Chapter 7 (liquidation). In their March 4 joint filing the creditors stated that they are “troubled by the fact that the Budgeted Amount shows that the Debtors will likely lose between $400,000 and $500,000 for the month of March.” They further stated:

The Trustee must provide a budget that allows Debtors to operate at least at break-even, or else he is spinning his wheels here in this case, at the expense of all creditors, and this case should simply be converted.

In Sierra Equipment’s motion yesterday the company asserted that it has “reason to believe that the Debtors may have sold certain of its Equipment without Sierra’s consent or knowledge.”

Creditors, Trustee Seek to Force Downsizing at Lewis Crane

March 4, 2010

In the wake of a creditor motion to liquidate Lewis Crane, other lenders are now seeking to dramatically downsize the Prairie, Texas-based company.

In a recent filing for the Lewis Equipment Company, Inc. (aka Lewis Crane) bankruptcy case, the judge authorized a trustee to supervise Lewis’ attempted reorganization proceedings. Within one week of his appointment as the new case trustee, Scott Seidel, oversaw the sale of two cranes and forty-one hoists to outside parties.

The bankruptcy judge issued another blow to Lewis Crane by terminating the company’s use of cash collateral. As a result, Lewis now is forbidden to use any cash generated from collateral (such as crane equipment) where creditors have a security interest. The use of cash collateral is often necessary for companies to continue daily operations.

Next, Sierra Equipment, Inc., which has an extensive equipment leasing deal with Lewis, filed a motion for relief from the bankruptcy’s automatic stay, stating that with “the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee and the termination of the Debtors’ ability to use cash collateral,” the financer has “no assurance of future performance” from Lewis Crane. As such, Sierra is requesting the right to take possession of the leased equipment, which includes dozens of tower cranes, among other pieces of equipment.

Lewis Crane’s biggest lender, Frost National Bank, followed Sierra’s lead yesterday filing its own motion for relief from the bankruptcy stay. Frost states: “As previously determined by the Court, the Debtor spent millions of dollars of Frost’s cash collateral by failing to streamline its business post-petition.” In fact, it was Frost that, several weeks ago, filed the emergency motion to terminate Lewis’ use of cash collateral, stating the following:

The Debtors’ operations continue to deteriorate. Fleet utilization is half of what it was when the case was filed. The Debtors are losing approximately $1.5 million per month and management has been unable or unwilling to make necessary cost-saving moves.

In its recent motion for relief, Frost further asserts that many of Lewis’ branch locations are not necessary for the company’s reorganization. The motion cites “Unnecessary Locations” in three Nevada offices, as well as branches in Florida and Washington. The bank further believes that Lewis is already “intends to surrender all equipment and other personal property at the Unnecessary Locations.” As a result, Frost is seeking the court to lift the automatic stay at these locations so that the bank can take possession of these assets.

As noted in earlier updates, Lewis Crane is a listed creditor of General Crane USA, a featured company on CraneWatchdog.com. In addition, General Crane, also in the midst of its own Chapter 11 bankruptcy, was involved in a lengthy, unresolved lawsuit with Lewis, dating back to early 2008. The suit is currently suspended due to the companies’ bankruptcies. It is unclear at this time how Lewis’ current bankruptcy troubles will impact its actions with General Crane.

Robertson, Retterath Still Face
Wells Fargo Suit

March 4, 2010

Despite General Crane USA filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, company owners Jason Retterath and Jim Robertson both personally remain defendants in a pending lawsuit filed by financer Wells Fargo.

On November 9, 2009 Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. sued Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) in Broward County Court, alleging that General had defaulted on loans valued at nearly $12 million. Among the collateral Wells Fargo cited in the suit were at least 10 Grove cranes, a half-dozen Linden-Comansa tower cranes, and two Liebherr crawler cranes, among other pieces of equipment.

Well Fargo’s complaint also asserted that both Retterath and Robertson had signed “Personal Guaranty” agreements, and as a result the owners were each personally responsible for repayment of the loans.

One month after Wells Fargo initiated the suit, General Crane went bankrupt and the company filed a “Suggestion of Bankruptcy” in the case, notifying the parties of the automatic stay pursuant to the bankruptcy. The automatic stay typically suspends creditor actions, such as repossession and litigation, against a bankrupt party.

Wells Fargo, however, continued to pursue the case against the General Crane owners. On December 17, the bank filed a “Motion for Default” against Jason Retterath, for “failing to respond to the Complaint.”

In mid-January, a month after Wells Fargo’s motion for default was filed against them, Robertson and Retterath each filed a separate motion for an extension of time to respond to Wells Fargo’s complaint. Retterrath’s motion for extension was filed pro-se indicating that at the time he filed his motion, he is representing himself without an attorney. The suit remains pending.

New Page on Zeiger Crane Lender
Financial Federal Credit

March 3, 2010

A new page is now available in the Zeiger Crane Rental section dedicated to lender Financial Federal Credit, Inc. (FFC).

Based on Florida Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) data, Financial Federal is the principal financer of Zeiger Crane and its affiliate companies.

According to its company website, Financial Federal was established in 1989. With approximately “$1.9 billion of assets” the company specializes in providing financing to small and mid-sized companies in the construction, waste management, and ground transportation industries. In November 2009 Financial Federal announced that it was being purchased by People’s United Financial, Inc., the publicly-traded bank holding company for People’s United Bank, based in Connecticut.

As reported here on CraneWatchdog.com, Financial Federal’s shareholders officially approved the merger on February 16, and three days later the company “completed its merger” with People’s.

The new Financial Federal page will examine data on the company’s recent lending history, and provide case studies on some of its larger loans – the first case study will be on Zeiger Crane. The page will later provide analysis on People’s United Bank.

Click here to learn more about Zeiger Crane Rental, Inc. and its affiliated companies.

Tower Crane Sections Found at Hunter Yard

March 2, 2010

General Crane USA affiliate company Hunter Crane is storing sections of Linden-Comansa tower crane at their Delray Beach headquarters yard, according to new photos available now on CraneWatchdog.com.

Hunter Crane is actually the fictitious business name of crane rental company Royal Crane, LLC, owned by Jim Robertson, Jason Retterath, and Jason’s father, Steven Retterath. The Royal Crane ownership group purchased a crane rental company called Hunter Crane, Inc. in early 2002, and the new owners continued to use the name “Hunter Crane” for the company’s daily operations.

The UCC Filings recording security interests in Hunter Crane’s equipment do not name any Linden Comansa tower cranes under Hunter’s ownership. Of course, Hunter affiliate Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) has dozens of Comansa tower cranes in its fleet.

As documented on this website, General Crane filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December 2009. On December 28, 2009 Hunter Crane actually filed a creditor claim against General for $512,477.47.

Among the items on the invoice sheet, Hunter repeatedly bills General for “Storage” fees. Hunter cites storage fees totaling $10,000 for the year 2007 and $24,000 for all of 2008. Beginning in January 2009, Hunter lists “yard” storage fees of $2,000 for each month. The Hunter invoice, however, does not list what property or equipment it is storing for General Crane.

The location of General Crane’s equipment, particularly its tower cranes, has been a point of contention between General and some if its creditors before and during the bankruptcy proceedings. As a result, in a recent court filing General applied to retain a firm called GoIndustry USA to conduct a company-wide audit of its property.

In a letter from GoIndustry to General Crane, the auditing firm states:

It is our understanding that approximately 95% of the equipment is concentrated at three company yards in Pompano Beach, FL; Atlanta, GA; and Houston, TX. Additionally, there is approximately 5% of the equipment scattered at approximately 30 different job sites in Dallas, San Antonio & Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA; Miami, FL; and Las Vegas, NV.

The letter does not list Hunter Crane’s yard as a place where General Crane equipment is located.

Photographs posted by CraneWatchdog.com from September 2009 also show that Hunter was storing Comansa tower crane sections in its yard at that time as well.

General Crane Negotiating
“Reduction” of Property

March 1, 2010

General Crane USA, in the midst of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, recently disclosed that it is negotiating with its creditors on a “procedure for the reduction and disposition of its property.”

The bankrupt company is reducing its fleet hoping to “avert costly litigation over the validity, priority and extent of liens that would be detrimental to both the Lenders and the Debtor.”

Last Friday, Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) filed an application in bankruptcy court to retain the services of GoIndustry USA, Inc., an asset management firm, for the purpose of conducting a company-wide audit of all General Crane equipment and property. The audit report will be completed and delivered sometime between March 5 and March 12, 2010.

GoIndustry USA has stated that it will charge General Crane a $15,000 fee plus approximately $5,000 in travel and related expenses. However, GoIndustry also functions as an equipment auctioneer with “extensive experience in bankruptcy matters.” As such the firm states:

Conducting a large sale for all creditors and then attaching liens to proceeds is the most cost effective method for the secured’s to liquidate their chattel.

If General Crane conducts such a sale, GoIndustry “will rebate back to the estate 100% of the fee for this audit in the event we are later retained to sell at least 50% of the assets that [General Crane] has earmarked to ‘return’ to the secured creditors as previously discussed.”

GoIndustry’s audit must sort through a General Crane fleet with many commingled crane parts.

In an earlier court filing, General Crane USA creditor Bank Midwest stated that General had allowed “components from all of its cranes to become mixed together such that the it is not possible to identify which crane parts are subject to each security interest.”

For instance, General Crane originally erected two Linden Comansa tower cranes on a stalled hospital project in Webster, Texas. Recently a General Crane crew took down the jib, counter jib, and turntable from the south crane on the project (see the image to the right). At this time CraneWatchdog.com has not verified the new location of these components.

In order to take full account of the company’s reported $80 plus million in assets, GoIndustry USA’s audit will provide the following services:

(i) conduct a physical inspection and verification of every major component of every crane by serial number; (ii) components without serial numbers will be grouped by asset type and counted; (iii) conduct a physical inspection and verification of noncrane assets; (iv) take photographs of the assets; and (v) take notes on the physical condition of equipment if apparent and notable.

A February 12, 2010 letter from GoIndustry USA addressed to General Crane’s attorney summarized the reported locations of General Crane’s equipment:

It is our understanding that approximately 95% of the equipment is concentrated at three company yards in Pompano Beach, FL; Atlanta, GA; and Houston, TX. Additionally, there is approximately 5% of the equipment scattered at approximately 30 different job sites in Dallas, San Antonio & Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA; Miami, FL; and Las Vegas, NV.

There are some pieces of equipment at “remote” job sites. In these cases, GoIndustry USA will “conduct the audit via telephone provided there is a qualified person on site to participate in the audit.”

Learn more about General Crane USA’s Chapter 11 proceedings at our Bankruptcy Page.

Creditors’ Committee Established in
General Crane Bankruptcy

February 26, 2010

The United States Trustee overseeing General Crane USA’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy in federal court announced Wednesday the appointment of a Committee of Unsecured Creditors also known as a “creditors’ committee”.

The purpose of a creditors’ committee is to represent the interests of unsecured creditors during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. Creditors’ committees are written into the Federal Bankruptcy Code at Chapter 11 U.S.C. § 1102, created to serve as a necessary check, leveling the field against the secured creditors’ often much stronger relative position in the proceedings. That stronger position is derived, in part, from the secured creditors’ actual possession of the debtor’s collateral, or a priority entitlement to that collateral where the debtor is still in possession of it.

Creditors’ committees have a special role in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Committees are granted investigatory powers over the bankrupt company, and the standing to bring their findings as evidence before the court. The court enables creditors’ committees to carry out their special role by allowing committee members to consult with the debtor in possession, and to participate in the formation of the debtor’s reorganization plan, which is the document ultimately determining payment (if any) for all creditors in the case.

To further assist the committee with their task the committee is permitted, with court approval, to hire professional staff such as legal counsel and financial advisers to provide, among other things, aid in reviewing the debtor’s finance documents and the ability to file motions before the court. Upon court approval, costs for these professional services are paid by the debtor (who in this case would be General Crane).

A well-informed creditors’ committee, who adeptly exercise their rights in the bankruptcy, can have a powerful impact on the direction of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Where the creditors’ committee takes a strong hand, they can often hold sway over a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and even steer it from reorganization to Chapter 7 liquidation, if the committee finds it in their interest.

For more information on the role of creditors’ committees in Chapter 11 cases, see the Department of Justice website. Other helpful primers can be found here and here.

You can find the latest news and up-to-date documents on General Crane USA’s bankruptcy by visiting our Bankruptcy page.

This article is not intended as actual legal advice or a legal opinion. Cranewatchdog.com is not associated with the U.S. Department of Justice, or the Federal Judiciary.

Creditors Move to Liquidate Lewis Crane

February 25, 2010

Lewis Equipment Company, Inc. (also known as Lewis Crane), a crane rental company headquartered in Grand Prairie, Texas, is fighting to avoid liquidation in its own bankruptcy case.

Two major creditors, Wachovia Financial Services, Inc. and Fifth Third Bank, recently filed a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy court requesting that the Lewis case be converted from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization: where the company continues to operate) to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation: where the business ceases operations and all company assets are redistributed to creditors). The creditors alternatively asked for a Chapter 11 trustee to oversee and correct alleged “sloppiness and misappropriation” of Lewis’ assets by Lewis’ senior management.

In arguing their case to convert the bankruptcy Wachovia and Fifth Third asserted the following:

Dogged by mismanagement and a dismal construction market, the debtors are unable even to tread water after more than four (4) months in bankruptcy. Their balance sheet is steadily deteriorating, leaving the $100 million in creditors’ claims with an ever diminishing prospect for recovery. For every $3 in top-line gross revenue taken in by the debtors, they are now losing an astonishing $5.

The creditors further allege “fraudulent transfers” made by Lewis Equipment owner Kyle Lewis:

As the examiner has now documented, the debtors’ sole owner, Kyle Lewis, drained approximately $13 million in assets from the debtors during their plunge into bankruptcy. These voidable transfers are the principal source of potential recovery for unsecured creditors in this case. Yet three months after the Court openly called out Mr. Lewis for his looting of corporate assets, he has failed to return any of the debtors’ cash or proceeds to the estate or even to make any commitments for their return.

The motion provides additional details on the alleged misappropriation of assets, including that Lewis “stashed approximately $10,000,000 of cash into CDs for safekeeping and were pretending otherwise.” Also, the creditors claim that “[t]here were suspicions that the Debtors had moved some of their assets, potentially including some secured creditors’ collateral, offshore to a New Zealand company owned by Mr. Lewis.”

A hearing is set for March 25 at 9:30AM at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas in Ft. Worth to debate the issue over the proposed conversion and the request to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee.

Lewis Crane is a competitor of General Crane USA, and the two companies had previously been engaged in a long legal battle in Harris County, Texas court. In that suit Lewis Crane claimed that General Crane officials Shawn Cluff, Randy Harris, and company owner Jim Robertson, accessed and misappropriated stolen trade secrets from Lewis. Among the allegations, Lewis asserted that Robertson “received confidential Lewis documents from Shawn Cluff,” who at the time was still employed by Lewis Crane. Robertson then allegedly “attempted to destroy the evidence of that fact” and later “falsely testified” that “he had never received any Lewis documents.” (See a more detailed list of allegations HERE.)

The lawsuit was put on hold following Lewis’ September 2009 bankruptcy filing. Three months later General Crane USA filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as well, and Lewis appeared as a General Crane creditor.

Upon reviewing Lewis Crane’s and General Crane’s respective bankruptcy filings, we have identified a number of common secured creditors for the crane rental companies. Below is a chart showing creditors that have lent money to both Lewis and General, as well as the creditor claims cited in Lewis’ and General’s bankruptcies.

For up-to-date news on these stories and others, make sure to regularly check CraneWatchdog.com’s Latest Updates.

General Crane Seeks to Hire Lawyer for Linden-Comansa Dispute

February 25, 2010

General Crane USA on Tuesday filed a request in bankruptcy court to retain Tony M. Davis of the law firm Baker Botts, LLP as special counsel to assist the company in its legal dispute with tower crane manufacturer Linden-Comansa America, LLC.

Comansa originally filed suit against Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) on November 10, 2009 in Harris County, Texas court, alleging that General had failed to pay approximately $1.5 million in contractual fees and had “stolen” almost one-million dollars worth of crane parts. Upon receiving a Writ of Sequestration from the Harris County judge, agents for Comansa, along with armed Constable officials, entered General Crane’s Houston, Texas yard on November 11 and seized almost one-million dollars worth of tower crane parts. The parts are currently in the possession of Texas law enforcement.

Since then, Comansa and General Crane have been battling in court over which party has the right to claim the parts, among other issues.

General Crane’s filing of bankruptcy in December 2009 suspended court action in Texas, as the bankruptcy’s automatic stay took precedence in the matter. However, Comansa recently requested that the bankruptcy judge allow the dispute to be litigated in the Texas court. General Crane, on the other hand, has argued against continuing the suit in Texas and has retained the Baker Botts firm to seek the transfer of the case to bankruptcy court.

According to General Crane’s court application to hire Baker Botts, the company intends to pay the law firm “its standard hourly rates.” Baker Botts partner Tony Davis, slated to lead the legal effort, charges an hourly rate of $800.00.

Click HERE to learn more about General Crane – Linden Comansa conflict. Also, you can follow General Crane’s bankruptcy case at our Bankruptcy Page.

Encore Construction, T&T Construction Added to Beyel Customers Section

February 24, 2010

Our continuing coverage of Florida crane company customers expands today with the addition of two Beyel Brothers customers – Encore Construction, a Winter Garden – based environmental contractor, and T&T Construction of Central Florida, a concrete and tilt wall contractor based in Casselberry. Beyel Brothers employees have indicated in our ongoing survey that Encore and T&T are current or recent Beyel customers.

These customers, along with previously profiled customers Drawdy Brothers, Coastal Mechanical, United Forming and MCM, are part of the “race to the bottom” that enables Beyel Brothers and other crane companies to undercut area wage and benefit standards in Florida.

We will eventually include dozens of Beyel customers, and extend customer coverage to other Florida crane companies.

More Details on Third-Party Inspections of General Crane at Marlins Stadium

February 24, 2010

Yesterday we reported on an OSHA investigation into General Crane’s Linden 8752 tower crane formerly working on the Marlins stadium project in Miami, Florida.

The investigation revealed that the project’s general contractor, Hunt-Moss, ordered General Crane to dismantle the tower crane in December 2009. At the time of the OSHA site visit, the investigator found a sign posted on the crane by Hunt-Moss, dated 11/18/09, stating: “THIS CRANE HAS BEEN FOUND DEFECTIVE: DO NOT OPERATE THIS CRANE.”

OSHA also obtained results from multiple third-party safety inspections of General Crane’s Linden tower crane erected on the construction site.

A General Crane USA document dated November 30, 2009, addressed to Baker Concrete (a subcontractor on the Marlins project), discloses numerous “deficiencies and recommendations” cited by the third-party inspectors. Below is a list of some of the identified tower crane deficiencies.

• “Before placing the crane into service, the equipment owner will need to mount a load chart in the cab of the crane.”
• “Before placing the crane into service, the equipment owner will need to install a wind speed indicator in the cab of the crane.”
• “There are 2 missing mounting bolts for the AM80 jib section to the CM80 cathead. The missing bolts need to be installed before the crane is placed into service. The equipment owner's technician did not have 2 longer bolts at the time of inspection.”
• “Aeronautical lights are required for any lower crane over 150', or as required by FAA permit. The lights will need to be installed before placing the crane into service.”
• “D: One platform bolt is missing in the area between the jib and the counterdeck”
• “D: The fire extinguisher is discharged and must be replaced. ASME B30.3-1.17.5 and 3-3.4.6”
• “D: The main hoist wire rope sheave in the jib (section AM30) is corrugated and must be replaced. ASME B30.3-1.5.4”
• “D: The main hoist wire rope is not secured in the wedge socket properly. The live end of the rope is on the dead side of the socket.”

General Crane claimed in the document that “corrective actions” were taken to “satisfy the items on the report.” Click HERE to read the document in its entirety.

For a full re-cap on the events at the Marlins project, visit the General Crane Safety page.

New Details Surface on General Crane’s Marlins Stadium Tower Crane

February 23, 2010

Hunt-Moss, the general contractor for the Marlins Stadium construction project, ordered General Crane USA to dismantle its onsite tower crane in December, according to a newly-available OSHA inspection report.

The OSHA investigation, initiated on December 3, 2009, discovered third-party crane safety reports citing “deficiencies” in General Crane’s Linden 8752 tower crane, erected originally in mid-November 2009. Another third-party crane inspector reported welding failures that weakened the pins at the base of the crane.

When the Fort Lauderdale Area OSHA investigator arrived at the Marlins Stadium construction site on December 3, the investigator noted: “Hunt Moss prohibited Gulfstream Crane, LLC to operate the crane until a third party inspector certifies the crane.” The OSHA official also observed that “the Linden 8752 tower crane had a red tag posted by the General Contractor that read ‘DO NOT OPERATE THIS CRANE.’”

The OSHA investigator learned during the site visit that the tower crane was “pending to be dismantled as per Hunt Moss request.”

While conducting the inspection the investigator obtained a third-party crane inspection report by PIC Crane Safety Services, LLC. The report, according to the OSHA official, “indicated a series of deficiencies and recommendation to be performed on the crane before a certification is issued.”

Two other third-party crane inspectors were also brought in to examine General Crane’s Linden tower. One of the inspectors cited structural problems with pins at the tower crane base:

The northeast leg has been welded several times and the welds have failed. The high carbon content of the steel on both pin connections have been compromised by the welding resulting in the loss of the strength of the pins. Before the crane is placed into service, these critical pin connections need to be replaced with new pins and lock plates as designed.

During the process officials from Gulfstream Crane provided the OSHA inspector with a letter from crane manufacturer Linden Comansa America “authorizing General Crane to fix or replace any structural components of the Linden Comansa Tower cranes.” In December 2009, Linden Comansa America, LLC sued General Crane USA in Harris County, Texas court, alleging that General Crane had unlawfully “stolen” over $800,000 in tower crane parts.

As reported earlier by CraneWatchdog.com, General Crane dismantled the Marlins Stadium tower crane on December 8, 2009, and then quickly thereafter re-erected the crane on December 11. Upon returning to the construction site on December 14, the OSHA investigator noted that the crane was in operation. General Crane was able to “provide a copy of the certification from a third party inspector and a copy of the certificate of inspection of the crane pins from OC Laboratories, Inc.” The OSHA official subsequently closed the investigation.

However, the narrative involving General Crane’s Marlins stadium tower crane did not end there. A little over a month later, on January 20, 2010, General Crane again dismantled the Linden tower crane on the stadium construction site. At this time we are awaiting verification for the reason behind the second tear-down. To date, General Crane has not erected a new tower crane at the construction project, which is currently in full swing.

For the ongoing chronology of General Crane’s tower crane issues at the Marlins stadium in Miami, visit our Safety page, or click HERE. Also, a full copy of the OSHA inspection report is available HERE.

Zeiger Lender Financial Federal Completes Merger with People’s Bank

February 22, 2010

The shareholders of the publicly traded Financial Federal Corporation on February 16 approved the proposed merger with People’s United Financial, Inc., the bank-holding company for Connecticut-based People’s United Bank.

Three days later Financial Federal Corp. filed its “Notification of Removal” from the New York Stock Exchange, suspending all trading of the company’s common stock. A second public filing on that date announced that Financial Federal has “completed its merger” with People’s. Among the terms of the settlement, the filing stated:

[E]ach outstanding share of common stock of Financial Federal, other than shares owned by People’s United or Financial Federal, was converted into the right to receive a combination of (i) one share of common stock of People’s United and (ii) $11.27 in cash, without interest.

Financial Federal Corporation is the parent company of Financial Federal Credit, Inc. (FFC), the principal lender for Zeiger Crane Rental, Inc., a featured company on CraneWatchdog.com. The Florida Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) website, which documents commercial loans, reveals that FFC has filed sixty (60) UCCs with Zeiger Crane since 2005, including twenty-four (24) in 2009 alone.

One of the final hurdles Financial Federal had to navigate before merging with People’s was a shareholder lawsuit – Edward Opton v. Financial Federal Corp., et al. – filed in the First Judicial Court of the State of Nevada on December 2, 2009. The suit, filed by a class of stockholders, alleged that Financial Federal and its directors “breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, candor, good faith and fair dealing by approving the merger.”

Among other allegations, the shareholders claimed that in their search for a buyer Financial Federal directors gave “preferential treatment” to People’s “in order to secure employment agreements for certain members of Financial Federal’s management.” The plaintiffs sought an order preventing the merger from moving forward.

On February 10, the two sides reached a tentative settlement. Among the terms, Financial Federal was required to make “certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger.” Among the disclosures is an excerpt concerning Financial Federal’s board of directors meeting in September 2009:

At the September 22, 2009 board meeting there was a discussion of, among other things, current industry trends, including a discussion of the continued lack of access by Financial Federal, and similarly situated companies, to the capital or debt markets and its inability to borrow additional funds to increase liquidity at competitive rates, along with an overall decline in its lending activities.

The rest of the company disclosures are available here. Also, click here and here to learn more about the merger agreement.

More details on Financial Federal’s operations, along with its merger with People’s United, will be available on this site shortly.

Information on Retroactive Wage Cuts is Posted on the
Texas Workforce Commission’s Website

February 19, 2010

The Texas Workforce Commission is a state agency responsible for investigating employee complaints against employers in Texas. One law the Commission administers is the Texas Pay Day Law, which addresses pay cuts of employee wages. The Commission’s summary of Texas law addressing retroactive wage cuts is found on its website. It states: “Reductions in the pay rate are legal, but should never be retroactive.” The Commission’s summary explains further that:

“Under the general common law, an employer must pay an employee according to the wage agreement that was in effect when the work was performed. If there is no written agreement, agencies and courts will use some variation of the "best evidence" rule to determine what the employer and employee "agreed" to when the employment relationship was formed. Whoever has the best evidence of the rate of pay and the method of pay will usually prevail on those points.”

On the Commission’s law library site here: you will find links to:

• a form for filing a complaint against an employer,
• instructions for filing a complaint,
• the full text of the Texas Pay Day Law;
  • Sec. 61.019 addresses criminal penalties for an employer’s failure to pay wages
  • Sec. 61.051 (c) explains the employee’s 180 day time limit for filing a claim

This posting provides links to general information provided to the public by the state of Texas. This posting is not legal advice or a legal opinion on the viability of any potential claims for retroactive wage cuts. If you have any questions we would suggest that you call the commission directly at the phone number they provide on their website: 1-800-832-9243 (within Texas only), (512) 475-2670 (outside Texas).

Cranewatchdog.com is not affiliated with the Texas Workforce Commission.

General Crane Employees
Reporting 6% Wage Cut

February 19, 2010

General Crane USA has implemented a 6% wage cut for its workers, according to multiple company employees who have contacted CraneWatchdog.com.

Sources report that on Thursday morning, February 4, General Crane management held a meeting at their Pompano Beach headquarters where they announced the pay decrease to their Florida workforce.

Worker pay checks obtained by CraneWatchdog.com show that the wage cut went into effect for the weekly pay period beginning January 31, 2010 – five days before the reported company announcement. The checks with the new, lower pay rates were issued on February 12, 2010.

It is unclear at this time whether General Crane’s owners held similar meetings on the pay reduction for their employees working out of the Georgia and Texas branch offices.

General’s move to reduce wages came less than two weeks after announcing the hiring of financial advisors Morris Anderson. The Chicago-based consulting firm specializes in “turnarounds and workouts,” for troubled companies, often in bankruptcy. General Crane paid a $30,000 retainer to Morris Anderson. General also disclosed in its bankruptcy filings that Dan Dooley, the Morris Anderson principal who will serve as the lead consultant, charges $525 per hour for his services.

If you wish to comment on this article, you may reach us by email at contactus@cranewatchdog.com or by phone at 877-272-4514.

General Crane Affiliate
Sued in Federal Court

February 16, 2010

Republic Crane Service, LLC was sued recently for the second time in less than six months for failing to make required payments to employee benefit plans.

The trustees for several benefit plans of the International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC) filed suit against Republic Crane on January 30, 2010 in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Republic had failed to pay $22,320.25 to multiple benefit trusts, including pension, healthcare, and education funds.

According to the complaint, Republic Crane had negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the Elevator Constructors union in December 2008. Republic subsequently employed workers covered under the agreement for a period of January 2009 to June 2009. Republic Crane had to contribute monies on a per-hour basis to certain Elevator Constructor union benefit plans on behalf of the employees covered by the agreement. Republic reportedly failed to make payments for the months of May and June.

The Elevator Constructor benefit plan trustees are demanding full payment for the delinquent fees ($22,320.25) plus liquidated damages of $4,464.05.

Trustees for benefit plans of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), Local 12 had sued Republic Crane in September 2009 for nearly $210,000. The parties reached a settlement in October 2009, wherein Republic agreed to pay the full amount plus interest by March 2010.

Republic Crane Service, LLC is incorporated in the state of Nevada. According to the company’s corporate records General Crane USA owners Jason Retterath and James Robertson serve as officers for Republic Crane. Other officers include Jason’s father, Steven Retterath, Raymond Bellamy, Charles Hall, and condo/hotel developer Jeffrey Soffer, who spearheaded the bankrupt Fontainebleau Las Vegas casino project.

According to a 2008 court testimony by James Robertson, Republic Crane serves as a labor company for Republic Tower & Hoist, LLC, a crane rental company. Robertson stated that he had a 25% ownership interest in Republic.

You can find out more about lawsuits involving General Crane USA and companies affiliated through common ownership at our Litigation Page.

General Crane Tower Cranes Sitting Idle at Troubled Webster, TX Hospital Project

February 12, 2010

New pictures are available for a Webster, Texas hospital construction project utilizing two General Crane USA tower cranes.

The tower cranes on site have been standing idle for months, and recently a General Crane crew took down the jib, counter jib, and turntable from the south crane.

Medistar Corporation is the owner-developer for the hospital project, and initially teamed with St. Luke’s Episcopal Health System to construct a 175-bed medical facility – officially named the St. Luke’s Clear Lake Hospital – at 200 Blossom St. in Webster, Texas. The developers retained construction firm Robins & Morton as the general contractor for the project. General Crane would later erect two Linden-Comansa tower cranes on the grounds.

However, in March 2009, one year into construction, the developers suspended the project reportedly due to a lack of financing. St. Luke’s, after waiting two months, pulled out of the enterprise citing the “elapsed time for when the developer was to have received complete funding for the construction.” This left Medistar with no health care operator to occupy the half-built facility.

In August 2009 the Houston Chronicle reported that Medistar had resumed construction on the hospital, yet the developer had not yet found an operator to replace St. Luke’s. To date, there has been no public announcement about a health care provider for the facility. Since the re-start, construction progress has been intermittent, and observers have noted little, if any, activity for General Crane’s two Linden-Comansa tower cranes on the site. Now, of course, only one crane is fully intact on the site.

CraneWatchdog.com will continue to report on projects involving General Crane USA, as well as other featured companies on this site.

U.S. Bancorp Files Court Motion to Repo General Crane Equipment

February 12, 2010

General Crane USA creditor U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance is seeking to repossess five construction hoists from the bankrupt crane rental company.

Two days ago U.S. Bancorp submitted a filing in the Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) bankruptcy case requesting to “terminate” the automatic stay that is preventing creditors from reclaiming equipment from defaulted loans. Also on Wednesday U.S. Bancorp filed four separate claims against General Crane totaling $2,137,456.76.

With this motion, U.S. Bancorp joins Caterpillar Financial, Center Capital Corporation, and Harry Fry & Associates as lenders who have sought relief from the bankruptcy stay currently protecting General Crane.

According to U.S. Bancorp’s motion, in early 2008 the equipment financer acquired a portion of a larger loan Bank of America issued to General Crane in 2006. In that deal U.S. Bancorp procured four separate loans used by General Crane to purchase five Pass/Mat Pega Hoists.

In 2009 U.S. Bancorp and General Crane agreed to a loan modification, which allowed General to make smaller monthly loan payments over a longer period of time. The new payment structure was to begin in September 2009. However, U.S. Bancorp’s motion alleges that General Crane made only its September payments and none thereafter, resulting in General breaching the terms of the modified loan agreement.

General Crane continues to use the collateral which is, U.S. Bancorp’s motion claims, “subjecting it/them to continued wear, tear, and depreciation.” As a result, the financer’s security interest is not adequately protected. In addition, U.S. Bancorp “has not been able to inspect its collateral and verify its conditions […] including insurance thereon.” Continuation of the automatic stay, the motion asserts, will cause “real and irreparable harm” to U.S. Bancorp.

Go to CraneWatchdog.com’s Bankruptcy Page to see the latest filings and analysis on General Crane’s bankruptcy.

New Featured Company: Zeiger Crane Rental

February 9, 2010

Zeiger Crane Rental, Inc. is the latest company exposed on CraneWatchdog.com for undercutting area standards for wages and benefits in the crane industry.

Headquartered in Riviera Beach, Zeiger Crane is one of the largest crane rental companies operating in southern Florida. While performing all manner of crane work, the company specializes in tilt wall projects. According to a May 2008 article, Zeiger had a fleet of 36 Link-Belt cranes, as well as over one-dozen semi-trucks to transport equipment.

Zeiger Crane’s compensation package for its operators, mechanics, drivers, and oilers falls well below established area standards for southern Florida. In a noteworthy example, reports from the Department of Labor reveal the company has contributed ZERO dollars to its employee 401K plan for each of the past four years on record.

The Zeiger Crane section of CraneWatchdog.com includes key financial, litigation, and workplace safety information on Zeiger Crane and its affiliates. CraneWatchdog.com will continue to post additional company information in future dates.

For more, see the Previous Updates section.