There was no "market out" provision in the Commitment Letter (which is widely available, either in HUN filings or from Scribd. If you have not read, highly suggest you do. Market out provisions allow banks to withdraw funding in the event of unforeseen market disruptions, such as the one we are currently witnessing. At the height of the bubble (pick the bubble), borrowers negotiated these out of commitment letters and in order to get their grubby little hands on the transaction fees, banks willingly deleted these clauses from deals in the belief that they could simply use other means to walk away from funding commitments, as here. This case will tell them that they cannot. This is why I am so perplexed as to why the banks are even contesting this matter and risking a very basty precedent to be put on the books, albeit a TX trial level precedent.