Supply Chain Is a Legal Exposure—Not Just a Force Majeure Problem
September 08, 2026 —
Owen Newman - Construction ExecutiveThis is not another force majeure article. The supply-chain related legal exposure that contractors are carrying today—in sanctions risk, specification non-compliance, warranty exposure and regulatory volatility—extends well beyond what even a well-drafted force majeure clause protects.
An engineering, procurement and construction contractor on a gas-fired power plant discovers during commissioning that transformer oil in a critical unit contains Russian-origin naphthenic base oil, which is a prohibited source under Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. The contractor didn’t source it. A subsupplier two tiers below made the substitution when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the primary supply chain for this specialty product and no one in the purchase-order chain flagged it. The procurement decision is long done and the documentation trail that should have caught it doesn’t exist.
Reprinted courtesy of
Owen Newman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...Mr. Newman may be contacted at
oknewman@duanemorris.com
Powering Data Centers in a Moving Regulatory Landscape: Positioning Deals Before FERC’s Next Move
April 27, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe explosive growth of data‑center load—driven by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and the expansion of digital infrastructure across industries—has forced U.S. energy regulators into unfamiliar territory. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is actively considering how large, concentrated loads can be powered without compromising grid reliability or shifting costs to other customers.
FERC has not yet issued a standalone rulemaking on data centers. But make no mistake, the regulatory framework is quietly and deliberately being built. For developers, hyperscalers, utilities and investors, the period before FERC finalizes its next round of decisions represents the critical window to crystallize advocacy and structure transactions in ways that anticipate regulatory change.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and
Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury
Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
DOI Finalizes Long-Awaited Modernization of Type A Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations
August 03, 2026 —
Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers & Jillian Marullo - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogFor nearly three decades, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) simplified “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations were available more in theory than in practice, constrained by dated models, narrow geographic applicability and a $100,000 cap that rarely matched the economics of modern environmental claims. DOI has now finalized revisions to the Type A natural resource damages assessment procedures under 43 C.F.R. Part 11 for hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), with the final rule published in the
Federal Register on July 13, 2026 and scheduled to become effective August 12, 2026.
As discussed
previously, DOI has sought to modernize what it views as an “inefficient and inflexible” process and restore the Type A procedure to its intended role as a more streamlined pathway for smaller, less contentious NRD claims. The final rule adopts a $5 million default damages threshold, allows use above that amount if all parties agree, clarifies that Type A may be used in all environments and for all natural resource types, and removes legacy model appendices that had tethered the process to outdated formulas.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Snell & Wilmer’s San Diego Office Ranked #1 “Best Place to Work” by the San Diego Business Journal
September 01, 2026 —
Snell & WilmerSAN DIEGO – Snell & Wilmer is proud to announce that its San Diego office has been named the
#1 Best Place to Work in the Large Business category by the San Diego Business Journal as part of its
2026 Best Places to Work awards. The annual recognition honors outstanding employers across the San Diego region that are setting the standard for workplace culture and employee engagement. Rankings are based on confidential employee surveys conducted by Workforce Research Group, which evaluate organizations on leadership, corporate culture, communication, employee engagement, and other key workplace factors.
“Being recognized as the #1 Best Place to Work in the Large Business category is an incredible honor because it reflects the experiences and feedback of our own team,” said
Bardia Moayedi, managing partner of Snell & Wilmer’s San Diego office. “Our people are the foundation of everything we do, and this recognition speaks to the collaborative, inclusive, and supportive culture they have helped create. I am grateful to every member of our San Diego office for making this an exceptional place to build a career, serve our clients, and give back to our community.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Snell & Wilmer
Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict
May 26, 2026 —
Gray Development GroupPHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction.
The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market.
According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona.
Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing.
ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997.
About Gray Development Group
Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.
That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable
May 14, 2026 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable.
During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know
July 13, 2026 —
Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & WilmerOn March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants.
Background: The Prior Rule
Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and
Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com
Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
Leading Boutiques Combine to Form SDV Fenchurch, A Global Law Firm for Insurance Policyholders
September 15, 2026 —
SDV FenchurchTRUMBULL, Conn., and LONDON, Sept. 1, 2026 — Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. (SDV), Fenchurch Law, Wesolowski Abogados, and CLIR & Fenchurch and their partner members in Asia, Europe and North America combined today to launch SDV Fenchurch, a global law firm built exclusively to represent policyholders and the brokers who advise them.
Structured as a Swiss verein, SDV Fenchurch unites dedicated insurance-recovery practices across eight jurisdictions in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, and Singapore. With over 90 lawyers devoted to insurance coverage matters, the firm is among the largest policyholder-side practices in the world and, by number of jurisdictions with full-time policyholder counsel capabilities, the most geographically extensive.
The founders are brought together by a single shared mission: to act solely for policyholders, never the insurers, in insurance disputes. This is in stark contrast to most international firms with insurance practices, which mostly represent insurers only.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SDV Fenchurch
