Opinion ID: 746794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Do the Facts Meet the Standard for Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction?

Text: 44 Having determined that the FDIC used section 1821(d) properly, we turn to a limited analysis of the district court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction.
45 The district court concluded that the FDIC demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits in the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims. 46 The FDIC submitted two declarations (Menenberg and Playdon), supported by nearly 200 exhibits detailing allegations of negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. The FDIC argues that the exhibits demonstrate that the Garners repeatedly abused their insider positions at the Bank by grossly overcompensating themselves, by approving imprudent loans ... and by their use of bank funds to fund their own personal expenditures. A review of the exhibits firmly supports the court's finding of a likelihood of success on the merits of the FDIC's claims. 47 Although the Appellants dispute the district court's findings, they fail to present any concrete arguments casting doubt on the court's conclusions. Absent such a showing by appellant, we must accept the district court's decision on this issue; it was not clearly erroneous. See Does 1-5, 83 F.3d at 1152.
48 Under 1821(d)(19), a preliminary injunction may be issued without regard to the requirement of such rule that the applicant show that the injury, loss, or damage is irreparable and immediate. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(19); see also Cruce, 972 F.2d at 1200 (Congress clearly intended to reduce the RTC's burden--vis a vis other litigants in similar situations--when it seeks to freeze assets). 49 Other courts have held that this provision does not eliminate the requirement for demonstrating some form of injury. See id. (We emphasize that our holding does not eliminate the RTC's burden to show potential injury when it seeks a preliminary injunction.); see also 136 Cong. Rec. E3686 (daily ed. November 2, 1990) (remarks of Rep. Schumer) (Congress still intends that the Corporation be required to make some showing of injury prior to obtaining relief). Other courts have formulated a standard for the required showing: Though the injury complained of need not be irreparable, it must be imminent, not remote or speculative. Plaintiff must show that it is likely to suffer ... harm if equitable relief is denied. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd v. Concord Limousine, Inc., 872 F.Supp. 1174, 1177 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (internal quotations omitted) (citations omitted). We agree with this cogent standard and hold that a possibility of harm must be evident before a court may grant injunctive relief under subsection (19). 50 Here, the district court found that there is at least a possibility that assets of Defendants Gerald Garner and Joan Garner will be dissipated during the pendency of this action unless injunctive relief is ordered by this Court. As with the analysis for likelihood of success on the merits, we must give substantial deference to the district court's factual findings. See Does 1-5, 83 F.3d at 1152. The Playdon declaration exhaustively detailed the FDIC's allegations concerning dissipation of assets. The district court soundly relied upon the declaration in assessing the possibility of dissipation of assets. 51 Although the Garners contest this finding, they again fail to provide any evidence to counter the FDIC's extensive documentation. They rely mainly on declarations submitted by their children. These arguments are insufficient to defeat the FDIC's proof of the possibility of dissipation of assets. 52 Based on the extensive allegations and documentation submitted, we affirm the court's ruling that the FDIC satisfied subsection 1821(d)(19)'s dissipation of assets standard. 53