Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund
527 U.S. 308, 119 S.Ct. 1961 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court does not have the authority under its general equitable powers to issue a preliminary injunction freezing the assets of a defendant in an action for money damages where the plaintiff is an unsecured creditor with no lien or equitable interest in those assets.
Facts:
- Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. (GMD), a Mexican holding company, issued $250 million in unsecured notes, of which respondents (Alliance) purchased approximately $75 million.
- GMD was involved in a toll road construction program and expected to receive a substantial payment from the Mexican government in the form of guaranteed notes (Toll Road Notes).
- Experiencing severe financial trouble, GMD defaulted on its August 1997 interest payment to the noteholders.
- GMD publicly announced plans to use its Toll Road Notes to satisfy its debts to Mexican creditors and pay back taxes, giving them preference over the noteholders.
- GMD entered negotiations with the noteholders, including Alliance, to restructure the debt, but these negotiations failed in December 1997.
Procedural Posture:
- Alliance Bond Fund sued Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. (GMD) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of contract and sought a preliminary injunction.
- The district court granted a temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction that prohibited GMD from transferring its rights to the Toll Road Notes.
- GMD, the defendant, appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the preliminary injunction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Second Circuit's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a United States District Court have the equitable power to issue a preliminary injunction preventing a defendant from transferring assets in which the plaintiff claims no lien or equitable interest, pending the adjudication of a claim for money damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A federal district court does not have the equitable power to issue such an injunction. The equitable jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to the traditional powers exercised by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Historically, a general creditor—one without a judgment establishing a debt or a lien on specific property—had no cognizable interest in the debtor's assets and could not interfere with the debtor's use of that property. The well-established general rule required a creditor to first obtain a judgment at law before a court of equity would intervene to help collect the debt. This rule was not merely procedural but substantive, protecting a debtor's right to control their unencumbered property. Modern remedies like the English 'Mareva injunction' were not part of this tradition and any substantial expansion of equitable remedies is a matter for Congress, not the courts, to decide.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. A federal district court should have the equitable power to issue such an injunction in appropriate circumstances. The Court's reliance on the practices of 18th-century English courts adopts an unjustifiably static view of equity. Federal equity jurisdiction has always been flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of a progressive society and the increasing complexities of modern business. In an age where capital can be transferred instantaneously across borders, a legal remedy can be rendered worthless if a defendant is free to dissipate all assets while a lawsuit is pending. When a plaintiff demonstrates a high likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, as here, a district court should be empowered to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and ensure its eventual judgment is not a hollow victory.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict, historical interpretation of federal courts' equitable powers, drawing a bright line against the creation of new judicial remedies without congressional authorization. It confirms that the merger of law and equity did not erase fundamental substantive distinctions, such as the rights of a debtor pre-judgment. The ruling significantly impacts creditors' strategies, particularly in cases involving defendants with liquid assets that can be easily moved, forcing creditors to rely on state-law prejudgment attachment statutes (if available) rather than a uniform federal equitable remedy. The Court explicitly deferred to Congress to create any 'new and powerful weapon to the creditor’s arsenal,' reinforcing a principle of judicial restraint in altering the long-standing balance in debtor-creditor law.
Unlock the full brief for Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund