IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process
April 27, 2026 —
David J. Creagan, Guido Antolini, Bruce W. MacLennan & Gary P. Biehn - White and Williams LLPOn April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the first phase of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal to administer refunds of duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through a streamlined electronic filing process.
Background
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain tariffs imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. Subsequent proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade required CBP to develop a scalable refund process applicable not only to litigants but also to non-plaintiffs. According to CBP and court filings, approximately 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. In response, CBP developed CAPE as an electronic, consolidated refund mechanism within ACE.
Reprinted courtesy of
David J. Creagan, White and Williams LLP,
Guido Antolini, White and Williams LLP,
Bruce W. MacLennan, White and Williams LLP and
Gary P. Biehn, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Creagan may be contacted at creagand@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Antolini may be contacted at antolinig@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. MacLennan may be contacted at maclennanb@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Biehn may be contacted at biehng@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional
April 27, 2026 —
Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocsTo deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate.
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy)
In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Oracle's $16B Michigan Data Center Secures Financing as Power Contracts Face Appeals
June 08, 2026 —
Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-RecordA $16 billion hyperscale data center under construction outside Ann Arbor, Mich., has secured financing backed by Blackstone and other institutional investors, even as the project's power supply agreements now face a legal challenge before the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-RecordMr. Gottlieb may be contacted at
gottliebb@enr.com
Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment
July 27, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:
Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”
Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
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.
Celebrating Freedom: The Overlooked Freedom to Contract in Commercial Insurance
July 20, 2026 —
Michael S. Levine & Andrea DeField - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogHappy 4th and 250 years of freedom . . . to contract!
Many policyholders assume insurance policies are “standard” and must be accepted as-is. That assumption is often wrong—and dangerously limiting. Unlike many consumer insurance markets, the commercial insurance realm preserves a robust “freedom to contract,” allowing sophisticated policyholders to negotiate terms, exclusions, definitions, and limits before a policy is even issued. Particularly in recent years, high-profile disputes over cyber coverage, business interruption, and war/cyber exclusions have shown not just what happens when coverage is denied, but what could have been done up front to avoid those fights.
This post highlights the power policyholders still hold in the negotiation process and illustrates, with concrete examples from recent media-covered disputes, how that freedom can be strategically used.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and
Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@hunton.com
Read the full story...
Amended Again?! Critical Changes to RPAPL § 881: What New York Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know
March 10, 2026 —
Mark A. Snyder & David Polazzi - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Recent amendments to New York’s RPAPL § 881 will significantly change how project teams obtain and maintain access to adjoining properties for construction-related work. The 2025 amendment signed into law by Governor Hochul, and the newly enacted 2026 revisions, will directly impact general contractors (GCs) and construction managers (CMs), as well as their trade contractors who regularly confront neighbor‑access, support‑of‑excavation, and protection‑of‑adjoining‑property challenges. Although we do not advise that GCs and CMs get involved in the “weeds” of license agreements or the prosecution of an action to obtain access pursuant to an RPAPL § 881 action, which are typically owner responsibilities, GCs and CMs should understand the change in law, as there may be circumstances where they are responsible for securing access.
This alert outlines the key statutory changes and explains the operational, scheduling, insurance, and risk‑management implications for the New York construction industry.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
David Polazzi, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com
Mr. Polazzi may be contacted at dpolazzi@pecklaw.com
Read the full story...
Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law
August 16, 2026 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogFor decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify. The former ordinarily arises at the beginning of litigation; the latter generally cannot be determined until the underlying liability is known. That distinction makes intuitive sense. A defense that becomes due only after litigation concludes is not much of a defense.
But Colorado’s construction anti-indemnity statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5(6), raises an interesting question about how that familiar rule operates in construction disputes. The statute expressly regulates contractual obligations not only to indemnify, but also to insure and defend, and it reflects a legislative policy that construction businesses should bear financial responsibility for their own negligence.
Those principles have developed along separate tracks. At some point, a Colorado appellate court may have to decide precisely how they fit together.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
