Note 20 - Contingencies - Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Notes to Financial Statements
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	20. Contingencies - Legal Proceedings Liabilities relating to legal proceedings and government inquiries, to the extent that we have concluded such liabilities are probable and the amounts of such liabilities are reasonably estimable, are recorded in the consolidated balance sheets. It is possible that future developments in our legal proceedings and inquiries could require us to (i) adjust or reverse existing accruals, or (ii) record new accruals that we did not originally believe to be probable or that could not be reasonably estimated. Such changes could be material to our financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows in any particular reporting period. In addition, disclosure is required when a material loss is probable but not reasonably estimable, a material loss is reasonably possible but not probable, or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed the amount recorded. The total liabilities recorded as of December 31, 2021 were $129.0 million, $63 million of which was paid through insurance proceeds, which have been fully funded into a settlement escrow account. The balance of the settlement escrow account is included in other current assets in the consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2020, total liabilities were immaterial. The total range of possible loss related to (i) matters considered reasonably possible, and (ii) reasonably possible amounts in excess of accrued losses recorded for probable loss contingencies, including those related to liquidated damages, could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements if they become probable and the reasonably estimable amount is determined. *Ordinary Course Legal Proceedings* In the ordinary course of business, we and our affiliates are involved in various legal proceedings alleging, among other things, liability issues or breach of contract or tortious conduct in connection with the performance of services and/or materials provided, the various outcomes of which often cannot be predicted with certainty. For information on our accounting policies regarding affirmative claims and back charges that we are party to in the ordinary course of business, see Note 1. We and our affiliates are also subject to government inquiries in the ordinary course of business seeking information concerning our compliance with government construction contracting requirements and various laws and regulations, the outcomes which often cannot be predicted with certainty. Some of the matters in which we or our joint ventures and affiliates are involved may involve compensatory, punitive, or other claims or sanctions that, if granted, could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures in amounts that are not probable to be incurred or cannot currently be reasonably estimated. In addition, in some circumstances our government contracts could be terminated, we could be suspended, debarred or incur other administrative penalties or sanctions, or payment of our costs could be disallowed. While any of our pending legal proceedings may be subject to early resolution as a result of our ongoing efforts to resolve the proceedings, whether or when any legal proceeding will be resolved is neither predictable nor guaranteed. *Securities Litigation and Derivative Lawsuits* On August 13, 2019, a securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jigisha Desai, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. An amended complaint was filed on February 20, 2020 that, among other things, added Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant. The amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities that acquired our common stock between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019, and alleges claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. After the filing of the amended complaint, this case was re-titled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al. The amended complaint seeks damages based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts in the Company’s SEC filings about its business, operations and prospects. On May 20, 2020, the court denied, in part, our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 21, 2021, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On October 23, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, titled Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al., was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz against the Company, James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, and the then-serving Board of Directors on behalf of persons who acquired shares of Company common stock in the Company’s June 2018 merger with Layne. The complaint asserts causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that the registration statement and prospectus were negligently prepared and included materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose facts required to be disclosed and seeks monetary damages based on these allegations. On August 10, 2020, the court sustained our demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. On September 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. We filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 9, 2021, the court entered an order overruling our demurrer seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The hearing on the motion has been continued to March 25, 2022 in light of the settlement proceedings in Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. On April 29, 2021, we entered into a stipulation of settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to settle Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The Settlement Agreement also settles claims alleged in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The settlement is subject to final court approval. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay or cause to be paid a total of $129.0 million in cash to a settlement fund that will be used to pay all settlement fees and expenses, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and cash payments to members of the settlement class. The settlement class has agreed to release us, the other defendants named in the lawsuits and certain of their respective related parties from any and all claims, rights, causes of action, liabilities, actions, suits, damages or demands of any kind whatsoever, that relate in any way to the purchase, acquisition, holding, sale or disposition of our common stock during the period between February 17, 2017 and October 24, 2019 that arose out of or are based upon or related to the facts alleged or the claims or allegations set forth in Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. or relate in any way to any alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or any other state, federal or foreign jurisdiction’s securities or other laws, any alleged misstatement, omission or disclosure (including in financial statements) or other alleged securities-related wrongdoing or misconduct, including all claims alleged in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The Settlement Agreement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties. On April 30, 2021, the class representative in Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The plaintiff in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. was permitted to intervene, although the court denied his application to be appointed as additional lead plaintiff. On October 6, 2021, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, $129 million was paid to the settlement fund after preliminary approval in October 2021. $66 million was paid by the Company and $63 million was paid through insurance proceeds into an escrow account. The total $129 million is included in the balance sheet as deposits and an accrued liability. Members of the settlement class had the opportunity to object to the settlement at a fairness hearing held by the court to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved and whether the proposed order and final judgment should be entered. The fairness hearing occurred on February 24, 2022 and the court took the motion for final approval of the settlement under submission. If the court approves the settlement, including the payment and release described above, and enters such order and final judgment, and such judgment is no longer subject to further appeal or other review, the settlement fund will be disbursed in accordance with a plan of allocation approved by the court. As a result of entering into the Settlement Agreement, we recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $66 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2021. On May 6, 2020, a stockholder derivative lawsuit, titled English v. Roberts, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Jigisha Desai, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, and our then-current Board of Directors, and the Company, as a nominal defendant, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that allegedly occurred between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants each knowingly inflated the Company’s revenue, income, and margins in violation of U.S. GAAP, which caused the results during the relevant periods to be materially false and misleading. The complaint seeks monetary damages and corporate governance reforms. The court has ordered that the lawsuit in the derivative action be stayed until further order of the court or until entry of a final judgment in the putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 12, 2021, a stockholder derivative lawsuit, titled Davydov v. Roberts, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against James H. Roberts, Jigisha Desai, Laurel Krzeminski, Craig Hall, our Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Compliance Officer, and Secretary, and our then-current Board of Directors, and the Company, as a nominal defendant, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty that allegedly occurred between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants each knowingly inflated the Company’s revenue, income, and margins in violation of U.S. GAAP, which caused the results during the relevant periods to be materially false and misleading. The complaint seeks monetary damages and corporate governance reforms. On July 16, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. We are in the preliminary stages of the litigation and, as a result, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of these cases. As of December 31, 2021, other than the Settlement Agreement charge described above, we did not record any liability related to the above matters because we concluded such liabilities were not probable and the amounts of such liabilities were not reasonably estimable. *Other Matters* In connection with our prior disclosure of the Audit/Compliance Committee’s independent investigation of prior-period reporting for the former Heavy Civil operating group and the extent to which those matters affected the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (the “Investigation”), we voluntarily contacted the San Francisco office of the SEC Division of Enforcement regarding the Investigation. The SEC has issued subpoenas for documents in connection with the accounting issues identified in the Investigation. We have produced documents to the SEC and will continue to cooperate with the SEC in its investigation. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Layne, was a subcontractor on the foundation for the Salesforce Tower office building in San Francisco in 2013 and 2014. Certain anomalies were discovered in March 2014 in the foundation’s structural concrete, which were remediated by the general contractor during 2015. Layne assigned any insurance claims it may have had under the project’s builder’s risk insurance policy to the general contractor. During 2014, the project owner and the general contractor submitted a claim to the project’s builder’s risk insurers to cover the cost of remedial work and related damages. The claim was denied by the builder’s risk insurers. The project owner and the general contractor subsequently filed a legal proceeding against the insurers seeking coverage under the builder’s risk insurance policy, which proceeding was then transferred by agreement to arbitration. On July 20, 2021, we were informed of an arbitration award denying insurance coverage for claims related to the remedial measures undertaken by the general contractor of the Salesforce Tower and related damages. Although we were not a party to this legal proceeding, we believe, based on court filings and developments in the arbitration, that the project owner and the general contractor asserted a claim for damages against the project’s builder’s risk insurers for an amount in excess of $100 million. On February 3, 2022, a lawsuit titled Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”), a subrogee of Clark/Hathaway Dinwiddie, a Joint Venture (“CHDJV”) v. Layne Christensen Company (“Layne”), was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, seeking damages of approximately $70 million for costs incurred by Steadfast on behalf of CHDJV to cure Layne’s allegedly defective work on the foundation of the Salesforce Tower. On February 4, 2022, CHDJV submitted an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against Granite Construction Incorporated seeking to recover approximately $30 million for costs incurred by CHDJV to cure Layne’s allegedly defective work on the foundation of the Salesforce Tower. We believe Granite and Layne have multiple defenses and Layne has counterclaims to the claims at issue. Both companies intend to vigorously defend against the claims, and Layne intends to prosecute its counterclaims, but, we cannot provide assurance that Granite and Layne will be successful in these efforts. We do not believe it is probable this matter will result in a material loss, however if we are unsuccessful we believe the range of reasonably possible loss upon final resolution of this matter could be up to approximately $100 million.

Note 20 - Contingencies - Legal Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

20. Contingencies - Legal Proceedings

Liabilities relating to legal proceedings and government inquiries, to the extent that we have concluded such liabilities are probable and the amounts of such liabilities are reasonably estimable, are recorded in the consolidated balance sheets. It is possible that future developments in our legal proceedings and inquiries could require us to (i) adjust or reverse existing accruals, or (ii) record new accruals that we did not originally believe to be probable or that could not be reasonably estimated. Such changes could be material to our financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows in any particular reporting period. In addition, disclosure is required when a material loss is probable but not reasonably estimable, a material loss is reasonably possible but not probable, or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed the amount recorded.

The total liabilities recorded as of December 31, 2021 were $129.0 million, $63 million of which was paid through insurance proceeds, which have been fully funded into a settlement escrow account. The balance of the settlement escrow account is included in other current assets in the consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2020, total liabilities were immaterial. The total range of possible loss related to (i) matters considered reasonably possible, and (ii) reasonably possible amounts in excess of accrued losses recorded for probable loss contingencies, including those related to liquidated damages, could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements if they become probable and the reasonably estimable amount is determined.

Ordinary Course Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we and our affiliates are involved in various legal proceedings alleging, among other things, liability issues or breach of contract or tortious conduct in connection with the performance of services and/or materials provided, the various outcomes of which often cannot be predicted with certainty. For information on our accounting policies regarding affirmative claims and back charges that we are party to in the ordinary course of business, see Note 1. We and our affiliates are also subject to government inquiries in the ordinary course of business seeking information concerning our compliance with government construction contracting requirements and various laws and regulations, the outcomes which often cannot be predicted with certainty.

Some of the matters in which we or our joint ventures and affiliates are involved may involve compensatory, punitive, or other claims or sanctions that, if granted, could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures in amounts that are not probable to be incurred or cannot currently be reasonably estimated. In addition, in some circumstances our government contracts could be terminated, we could be suspended, debarred or incur other administrative penalties or sanctions, or payment of our costs could be disallowed. While any of our pending legal proceedings may be subject to early resolution as a result of our ongoing efforts to resolve the proceedings, whether or when any legal proceeding will be resolved is neither predictable nor guaranteed.

Securities Litigation and Derivative Lawsuits

On August 13, 2019, a securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jigisha Desai, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. An amended complaint was filed on February 20, 2020 that, among other things, added Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant. The amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities that acquired our common stock between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019, and alleges claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. After the filing of the amended complaint, this case was re-titled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al. The amended complaint seeks damages based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts in the Company’s SEC filings about its business, operations and prospects. On May 20, 2020, the court denied, in part, our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 21, 2021, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

On October 23, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, titled Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al., was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz against the Company, James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, and the then-serving Board of Directors on behalf of persons who acquired shares of Company common stock in the Company’s June 2018 merger with Layne. The complaint asserts causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that the registration statement and prospectus were negligently prepared and included materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose facts required to be disclosed and seeks monetary damages based on these allegations. On August 10, 2020, the court sustained our demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. On September 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. We filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 9, 2021, the court entered an order overruling our demurrer seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The hearing on the motion has been continued to March 25, 2022 in light of the settlement proceedings in Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al.

On April 29, 2021, we entered into a stipulation of settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to settle Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The Settlement Agreement also settles claims alleged in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The settlement is subject to final court approval.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay or cause to be paid a total of $129.0 million in cash to a settlement fund that will be used to pay all settlement fees and expenses, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and cash payments to members of the settlement class. The settlement class has agreed to release us, the other defendants named in the lawsuits and certain of their respective related parties from any and all claims, rights, causes of action, liabilities, actions, suits, damages or demands of any kind whatsoever, that relate in any way to the purchase, acquisition, holding, sale or disposition of our common stock during the period between February 17, 2017 and October 24, 2019 that arose out of or are based upon or related to the facts alleged or the claims or allegations set forth in Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. or relate in any way to any alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or any other state, federal or foreign jurisdiction’s securities or other laws, any alleged misstatement, omission or disclosure (including in financial statements) or other alleged securities-related wrongdoing or misconduct, including all claims alleged in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. The Settlement Agreement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties.

On April 30, 2021, the class representative in Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The plaintiff in Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et al. was permitted to intervene, although the court denied his application to be appointed as additional lead plaintiff. On October 6, 2021, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, $129 million was paid to the settlement fund after preliminary approval in October 2021. $66 million was paid by the Company and $63 million was paid through insurance proceeds into an escrow account. The total $129 million is included in the balance sheet as deposits and an accrued liability. Members of the settlement class had the opportunity to object to the settlement at a fairness hearing held by the court to determine whether the settlement should be finally approved and whether the proposed order and final judgment should be entered. The fairness hearing occurred on February 24, 2022 and the court took the motion for final approval of the settlement under submission. If the court approves the settlement, including the payment and release described above, and enters such order and final judgment, and such judgment is no longer subject to further appeal or other review, the settlement fund will be disbursed in accordance with a plan of allocation approved by the court.

As a result of entering into the Settlement Agreement, we recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $66 million in the quarter ended March 31, 2021.

On May 6, 2020, a stockholder derivative lawsuit, titled English v. Roberts, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against James H. Roberts, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, Jigisha Desai, our former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, our former Chief Financial Officer, and our then-current Board of Directors, and the Company, as a nominal defendant, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that allegedly occurred between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants each knowingly inflated the Company’s revenue, income, and margins in violation of U.S. GAAP, which caused the results during the relevant periods to be materially false and misleading. The complaint seeks monetary damages and corporate governance reforms. The court has ordered that the lawsuit in the derivative action be stayed until further order of the court or until entry of a final judgment in the putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On May 12, 2021, a stockholder derivative lawsuit, titled Davydov v. Roberts, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against James H. Roberts, Jigisha Desai, Laurel Krzeminski, Craig Hall, our Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Compliance Officer, and Secretary, and our then-current Board of Directors, and the Company, as a nominal defendant, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty that allegedly occurred between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants each knowingly inflated the Company’s revenue, income, and margins in violation of U.S. GAAP, which caused the results during the relevant periods to be materially false and misleading. The complaint seeks monetary damages and corporate governance reforms. On July 16, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

We are in the preliminary stages of the litigation and, as a result, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of these cases.

As of December 31, 2021, other than the Settlement Agreement charge described above, we did not record any liability related to the above matters because we concluded such liabilities were not probable and the amounts of such liabilities were not reasonably estimable.

Other Matters

In connection with our prior disclosure of the Audit/Compliance Committee’s independent investigation of prior-period reporting for the former Heavy Civil operating group and the extent to which those matters affected the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (the “Investigation”), we voluntarily contacted the San Francisco office of the SEC Division of Enforcement regarding the Investigation. The SEC has issued subpoenas for documents in connection with the accounting issues identified in the Investigation. We have produced documents to the SEC and will continue to cooperate with the SEC in its investigation.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Layne, was a subcontractor on the foundation for the Salesforce Tower office building in San Francisco in 2013 and 2014. Certain anomalies were discovered in March 2014 in the foundation’s structural concrete, which were remediated by the general contractor during 2015. Layne assigned any insurance claims it may have had under the project’s builder’s risk insurance policy to the general contractor. During 2014, the project owner and the general contractor submitted a claim to the project’s builder’s risk insurers to cover the cost of remedial work and related damages. The claim was denied by the builder’s risk insurers. The project owner and the general contractor subsequently filed a legal proceeding against the insurers seeking coverage under the builder’s risk insurance policy, which proceeding was then transferred by agreement to arbitration. On July 20, 2021, we were informed of an arbitration award denying insurance coverage for claims related to the remedial measures undertaken by the general contractor of the Salesforce Tower and related damages. Although we were not a party to this legal proceeding, we believe, based on court filings and developments in the arbitration, that the project owner and the general contractor asserted a claim for damages against the project’s builder’s risk insurers for an amount in excess of $100 million.

On February 3, 2022, a lawsuit titled Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”), a subrogee of Clark/Hathaway Dinwiddie, a Joint Venture (“CHDJV”) v. Layne Christensen Company (“Layne”), was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, seeking damages of approximately $70 million for costs incurred by Steadfast on behalf of CHDJV to cure Layne’s allegedly defective work on the foundation of the Salesforce Tower. On February 4, 2022, CHDJV submitted an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against Granite Construction Incorporated seeking to recover approximately $30 million for costs incurred by CHDJV to cure Layne’s allegedly defective work on the foundation of the Salesforce Tower. We believe Granite and Layne have multiple defenses and Layne has counterclaims to the claims at issue. Both companies intend to vigorously defend against the claims, and Layne intends to prosecute its counterclaims, but, we cannot provide assurance that Granite and Layne will be successful in these efforts. We do not believe it is probable this matter will result in a material loss, however if we are unsuccessful we believe the range of reasonably possible loss upon final resolution of this matter could be up to approximately $100 million.