## Facts

- Antioch University was a private university governed by a board of trustees and faced severe financial problems.
- The Antioch School of Law operated as a unit within the University rather than as a separately chartered entity.
- Law-school leaders and aligned parties feared that the University’s broader financial distress could jeopardize the law school’s accreditation and operations.
- Law-school authorities sought to control the law school’s financial affairs, including receipts and grant funds tied to educational and clinical programs.
- The law-school side sued the University, alleging the University had contractually relinquished administrative and financial control over the law school and had breached fiduciary duties owed to law-school students and clinic clients.
- The University responded that it remained responsible for all University funds, including those associated with the law school, and that centralized control was necessary to manage resources for the institution as a whole.
- Both sides sought preliminary injunctions: the law-school side to prevent University interference and maintain law-school control of funds, and the University to confirm its authority and require that law-school funds be placed under University control pending litigation.
- The trial court denied the law-school side’s motion and granted the University’s motion in part, ordering that law-school funds be under University control during the case.
- The law-school side appealed the preliminary-injunction rulings to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the law-school side’s request for a preliminary injunction seeking interim control over the law school’s finances and administration.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting the University partial preliminary injunctive relief requiring that law-school funds be placed under University control pending a final decision.
3. Whether asserted risks to accreditation and program continuity amounted to irreparable harm sufficient to justify interim relief that would shift financial control away from the University’s governing board.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the law-school side’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court also affirmed the trial court’s partial grant of preliminary relief to the University, including the order placing law-school funds under University control pending resolution on the merits.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in applying the preliminary-injunction factors and in declining to transfer interim financial control to the law school.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; appellate review of a grant or denial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion.
- Courts weigh (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm absent relief, (3) balance of harms, and (4) the public interest.
- When requested interim relief would change existing control arrangements rather than preserve them, the movant must make a strong showing on irreparable harm and the merits.
- Predicted future harms tied to third-party decisions (such as possible accreditation actions) may be too uncertain at the preliminary stage to qualify as irreparable harm.
- In disputes over internal financial control within a single institution, courts may treat governance documents and the authority of the central governing body as a strong indicator of who should control institutional funds pending trial.
- A sub-unit of a larger institution generally cannot obtain interim control of funds against the central governing body absent a clear legal basis establishing separate authority.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed preliminary orders leaving financial control with Antioch University’s trustees during litigation because the law-school side did not make a sufficiently strong, non-speculative showing of irreparable harm or likely success to justify shifting interim control of law-school funds away from the University.


In Re Antioch University, 418 A.2d 105 (1980)