Our website is made possible by displaying non-intrusive online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling or pausing your ad blocker.
It is fairly common in a major US accident lawsuit to name multiple parties initially, even when an investigation points strongly toward the crane owner/operator.
But being named doesn’t mean Favco will pay.
In fact, if the official investigation clearly establishes that the owner/operator’s actions caused the incident and there was no crane manufacturing defect, that can be an important defence for Favco.
Based on the New York City investigation and subsequent enforcement actions, some actions were taken, but they were not the same for every party.
1. Cross Country Construction LLC (crane user/operator)
The New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) issued a safety violation against Cross Country Construction and is seeking a US$25,000 penalty. The violation relates to safety obligations associated with the crane operation.
2. New York Crane & Equipment Corp. (crane owner)
The investigation was critical of New York Crane & Equipment Corp. It concluded that:
* the company did not implement Favelle Favco’s earlier recommended fire-safety measures (such as fire detection/suppression and enhanced inspection procedures),
* it also did not inform Cross Country Construction about those recommendations.
However, the DOB did not issue a penalty against New York Crane & Equipment Corp. According to the department, it could only issue violations to the entities that held the relevant permits for the construction site and crane use—in this case, the crane user and construction-site permit holders, not the leasing company.
3. General contractor (Monadnock Construction)
The DOB also issued several violations to the general contractor:
* One violation was dismissed.
* One was corrected shortly after the incident.
* One was upheld with a US$25,000 penalty, although the company has challenged it in court.
Why this matters for Favco
These findings are relevant because the investigation specifically noted that the crane owner did not adopt the manufacturer’s recommended safety measures, while Favelle Favco’s U.S. subsidiary was not identified by the investigation as the party responsible for causing the incident. That does not automatically resolve the civil lawsuits, but it provides an important part of Favco’s defence.
Muhibbah Engineering trading @ 0.515 as 23/7/26
* Attractive valuation as PE 4.9x / PB 0.27x
* High Dividend yield 6.8%
* Strong order book as 2.4billion (about 90% secure within recent 12 months)
* Cash 723m vs total borrowing 541m
* 30% own associate company - SCA/Cambodia Airport with NET CASH of EUR 323m (equal to RM 452m own by Muhibbah; which is not count in to the group’s cash balance)
+ 77.6m cranes order @ Aug 2025
+ 79m cranes order @ Nov 2025
+ 700-850m Epc for Petronas (Sepat) @ Dec 2025
+ 76.3m cranes order @ Jan 2026
+ 42.6m cranes order @ Mar 2026
+ 120m Noise Barrier for Penang LRT @ Apr 2026
+ 90.6m crane order @ 22th May
+ 300m EPCC for THE LNG REGASIFICATION TERMINAL 3 (Lumut RGT3) @ Jun 2026
+ 504m crane order @ Jul 2026
As of 15th May, orderbook stood at 1.56b
+ 90.6m crane order @ 22th May
+ 300m EPCC OF THE LNG REGASIFICATION TERMINAL 3 (RGT3) @ 8th Jun
+ 504m crane order @ 2nd Jul
