Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard oral argument concerning an injunction that would grant student-athletes in the 2022 freshman class a fifth year of eligibility under the NCAA's new "Five for Five" rule. The case centers on whether the NCAA's decision not to apply its new eligibility rule retroactively to the 2022 class violates their rights, while many fifth-year football players remain sidelined pending the court's decision.

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.

The Texas Business Court addressed whether parties could circumvent an existing district court receivership by filing a new action in the Business Court. In Parker v. Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, Judge Stacy Rogers Sharp examined the jurisdictional boundaries between the Business Court and district courts when a receivership is already in place, clarifying the scope of exclusive jurisdiction under Texas law.