Connecting Knowledge & People

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, examining whether ERISA plaintiffs must plead a "meaningful benchmark" when alleging imprudent selection of underperforming retirement plan funds. The Justices' questions suggest they may endorse this requirement while providing guidance on what constitutes a meaningful comparator for evaluating fund performance.

This comprehensive newsletter covers recent consumer protection enforcement actions by the FTC, CFPB, and state Attorneys General, alongside NAD advertising challenge decisions and regulatory developments. The update examines settlements involving deceptive business practices, data breaches, and unlawful operations, while highlighting new guidance on price transparency and impersonation rules that will shape compliance strategies across industries.

When sophisticated parties to a restructuring agreement provide that a fee is triggered if a debtor “raises, or “commits to raise” alternative financing, does the word “commits” require a binding contractual obligation or something less? The First Department addressed this very question in a recent decision entitled Aurelius Capital Master Ltd. v Hertz International Limited, 2026 NY Slip Op 05369 (1st Dept Sept. 22, 2026). The 4-1 decision affirmed a post-trial judgment of approximately $15.9 million in favor of holders of unsecured notes issued by a Hertz affiliate, holding that “commits to raise” encompasses significant affirmative steps toward securing alternative financing, even absent a binding agreement.