Opinion ID: 221659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Type of Equitable Relief Granted

Text: The Employee Defendants also renew their contention that the Receiver obtained, in essence, a writ of attachment, arguing that the substance of the Receiver's suit was a request to hold assets in order to satisfy a money judgment. While the Receiver also requested an attachment, the district court did not consider this request and expressly granted an injunction. In doing so, the district court differentiated between a TUFTA injunction and a writ of attachment. As the district court noted, TUFTA provides for both injunctions and attachments. See TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE § 24.008(a)(2) (attachment); id. § 24.008(a)(3)(A) (injunction). The district court relied upon Telephone Equipment Network, Inc. v. TA/Westchase Place, Ltd. for the proposition that a claim for fraudulent transfer under Texas law contemplates the issuance of a preliminary injunction. 80 S.W.3d at 610. [10] The district court's reliance was well placed. TUFTA provides that the claimant may obtain an injunction against further disposition of `the asset transferred or of other property.' Id. (quoting TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE ANN. § 24.008(a)(3)). Furthermore, the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction lacks the hallmarks of an attachment: namely, a seizure or lien. The Receiver claims that Stanford fraudulently transferred proceeds from the alleged Ponzi scheme to the Employee Defendants and sought an injunction to prevent the dissipation of those proceeds, now held in the frozen accounts. TUFTA expressly provides for an injunction and the district court exercised its discretion to grant that injunction.