White and Williams LLP Secures $42.4 Million Award for Ventana DBS LLC in Philadelphia Marriott Construction Litigation
July 27, 2026 —
Craig O'Neill, Lindsay Liebman, Kristen Nichols Wright, Zachary Roth & William Taylor - White and WilliamsWhite and Williams LLP's Construction and Surety Practice attorneys secured a significant victory for client Ventana DBS LLC in a complex commercial construction dispute before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Commerce Division. The trial team, led by Bill Taylor, retired Partner, and Craig O'Neill, Co-Chair of the Construction and Surety Practice Group, with support from Lindsay Liebman, Counsel, Zachary Roth, Partner, Kristen Nichols Wright, Associate, and Sue Ferrante, Legal Secretary, obtained a $42.4 million award on Ventana's claims for unpaid work, delay costs, CASPA penalties and interest, attorneys’ fees and other project-related costs arising from the construction of the Marriott W/Element Hotel Project in Philadelphia.
To achieve this result, the White and Williams team managed an extensive discovery period over the course of four-years of litigation, conducted over sixty depositions, participated in court-ordered mediation and arbitration proceedings, and successfully represented Ventana during a bifurcated trial that spanned over the course of a year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Craig O'Neill, White and Williams,
Lindsay Liebman, White and Williams,
Kristen Nichols Wright, White and Williams,
Zachary Roth, White and Williams and
William Taylor, White and Williams
Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Liebman may be contacted at liebmanl@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Wright may be contacted at wrightk@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
PJM’s Reliability Backstop Procurement Proposal—Fast-Track Capacity to Meet Rising Large-Load Demand
May 12, 2026 —
Stephen J. Humes, Alicia M. McKnight, Jason Drogin Atwood & Andrew H. Jacobs - Gravel2GavelIn January, we discussed the Statement of Principles jointly signed by the National Energy Dominance Council and governors across the mid-Atlantic region—framing accelerating demand (especially from large-scale data centers) as an emergency reliability issue for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), the nation’s largest power grid operator. That policy signal is now becoming a near-term, accelerated procurement and contracting exercise. On April 8, 2026, PJM notified stakeholders of a critical issue fast path reliability backstop procurement process. PJM subsequently released a request for information (RFI) with respect to a proposed Reliability Backstop Procurement (RBP)—a one-time mechanism intended to attract significant new capacity to address projected reliability shortfalls driven by large-load growth.
RBP compresses what is often a multiyear market and regulatory conversation into a fast-moving set of commercial choices. Developers, large loads, utilities and capital providers should be preparing now for (i) an accelerated bilateral contracting window and (ii) a standardized PJM-led backstop procurement if bilateral deals do not clear enough capacity.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury,
Jason Drogin Atwood, 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. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com
Read the full story...
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
Massachusetts Settlement Targets Mortgage-Backed “Homeowner Benefit” Agreements
April 08, 2026 —
A.J. S. Dhaliwal, Mehul N. Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas - SheppardOn March 11, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced a consent order with a real estate-related lender’s subsidiary, and affiliated individuals resolving allegations that the company violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by deceptively marketing mortgage-backed “Homeowner Benefit Agreements” to financially struggling homeowners.
According to the complaint, the company offered homeowners relatively small upfront cash payments, typically less than $1,500, in exchange for a 40-year exclusive right to act as the listing broker if the homeowner later sold the property. The Attorney General alleged that the agreements also triggered substantial payment obligations upon other transfers, including death or foreclosure, and that the transactions were secured by recorded mortgages that could interfere with refinancing, home-equity access, or the ability to sell the home. The complaint further alleged that the company marketed the product to vulnerable consumers searching for loans or public benefits while obscuring the true nature of the transaction.
Reprinted courtesy of
A.J. S. Dhaliwal, Sheppard,
Mehul N. Madia, Sheppard and
Maxwell Earp-Thomas, Sheppard
Mr. Dhaliwal may be contacted at adhaliwal@sheppard.com
Mr. Madia may be contacted at mmadia@sheppard.com
Mr. Earp-Thomas may be contacted at mearp-thomas@sheppard.com
Read the full story...
My Current Love-Hate Relationship with AI
June 08, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s early in the relationship, I know. But still, there are some things that bug me. Yet, I also know that it’s a relationship in which leaving is not an option, and even if I could, it’s not to the point where it’s so bad that I would do so. So, if you would, let me gripe a bit.
While there’s been much discussion about AI and, at least in my neck of the woods, a fair amount of discussion about how lawyers can, should, and must use AI or risk becoming discarded into the dustbin of history, much less has been written about clients’ use of AI.
Increasingly, I’ve gotten the sense that my clients are using AI. For example, I had a client ask for confirmation that if he disagreed with an administrative decision that he could file a writ of mandate, and if so, whether that deadline was 30, 60 or 90 days after the administrative decision. The answer to the first question was yes, and as to the second question, the answer was 90 days. This was from a client who, smart as he is, probably didn’t know this off the top of his head.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI
March 03, 2026 —
Christopher J. Olsen, Freddy X. Muñoz & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery.
Facts
Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Global Insights Center: Monthly Newsletter
June 15, 2026 —
Global Insights Center Staff - The HartfordMay in Review
Last month, inflation moved higher, with Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rising to 3.8% year over year, up from 3.3% the prior month. The increase was driven primarily by energy prices, particularly gasoline, reflecting ongoing disruptions tied to the Middle East conflict.
Labor market data were broadly stable. The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.3%, wage growth increased modestly to 3.6%, while job growth continued to be geographically concentrated in the Southern states, particularly cities in Texas. On an occupational basis, healthcare once again led job gains, especially in home health services, a trend we have consistently highlighted. Business formations increased during the month, with notable strength in e commerce and digital services firms. Manufacturing activity also improved, particularly in semiconductors, IT equipment, and natural gas–related energy infrastructure.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Global Insights Center Staff, The Hartford
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/18/25) – Data Center Frenzy, China’s Expanding REIT Market and Tariff-Affected Construction Costs
March 31, 2026 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, relistings reached highest total in a decade, Florida State Legislature passes bill to increase the state’s housing supply, data center construction adapts to changes and more!
- The data center construction frenzy and a new, potentially larger highway bill were top of mind for builders during the latest round of contractor earnings calls and financial reports. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)
- Tariffs and associated policy uncertainty have increased construction costs and delayed leasing and investment choices. (J.P. Morgan)
- Relistings hit the highest January figure since Redfin began tracking this metric a decade ago. (Diana Olick, CNBC).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
