Janvey v. Alguire

Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
July 22, 2011

No. 10-10617 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

RALPH S. JANVEY,

Plaintiff–Appellee
v.

JAMES R. ALGUIRE; VICTORIA ANCTIL; TIFFANY ANGELLE; SYLVIA
AQUINO; JONATHAN BARRACK; ET AL. 1; TERAL BENNETT, SUSANA
CISNEROS; RON CLAYTON; JAMES FONTENOT; MARK GROESBECK;
ET AL. 2; and JASON GREEN,

Defendants–Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

Before STEWART, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge:
We withdraw our prior opinion, Janvey v. Alguire, 628 F.3d 164 (5th Cir.
2010), and substitute the opinion that follows:1

1
There are no substantive changes to our previous conclusions and reasoning
concerning whether the district court had the power to grant a preliminary injunction;
whether the district court abused its discretion when it granted the preliminary injunction;
whether the district court’s preliminary injunction was overbroad; and whether the district
court properly granted a preliminary injunction rather than a writ of attachment. We find,
however, that we do not have jurisdiction to decide the motion to compel arbitration. We
substitute the entire opinion, although our conclusions in Parts II.B–II.E remain the same.
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought suit against
Stanford Group Company (“SGC”), along with various other Stanford corporate
entities, including Stanford International Bank (“SIB”), for allegedly
perpetrating a massive Ponzi scheme.2 The district court appointed Robert
Janvey (the “Receiver”) to marshal the Stanford estate. In November, this Court
heard Janvey v. Adams, 588 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2009),3 a case concerning the
frozen accounts of Stanford investors. Although the Fifth Circuit ordered the
district court to thaw the accounts of the Stanford investors, the Receiver
subsequently obtained a preliminary injunction against numerous former
financial advisors and employees of SGC, freezing the accounts of those
individuals pending the outcome of trial.4
In this interlocutory appeal, the Employee Defendants contend that the
district court should have granted their motion to compel arbitration, and that
the district court had no power to grant the preliminary injunction when the
motion to compel arbitration was pending. Additionally, the Employee
Defendants claim that the district court abused its discretion when it granted
the preliminary injunction, and that the Receiver’s calculation of the amounts
subject to the injunction was overly broad. The Bennett Defendants appeal

2
The alleged Ponzi scheme concerned more than 100 corporate entities controlled by
R. Allen Stanford. The Receiver obtained a preliminary injunction maintaining a freeze on
accounts that belong to 117 of the defendants. Where the distinction is of no moment, we will
refer to the corporate entities collectively as “Stanford.”
3
Judge Dennis authored the opinion, joined by Judge Garwood and Judge Prado.
4
There are numerous appellants, represented by various counsel. The district court
describes the approximately 330 former Stanford employees collectively as “Employee
Defendants.” We will continue this practice for the appellants in this proceeding. When we
have need to refer to the specific arguments by a particular group of defendants or a single
defendant, we will refer to the seventy-six financial advisor defendants who together filed a
brief as “FA Defendants,” to the defendants who filed the Teral Bennett et al. brief as the
“Bennett Defendants,” and to Jason Green as “Green.”

2
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

separately, claiming that the district court erroneously found that SGC operated
as a Ponzi scheme.
We hold that (1) the district court had the power to decide the motion for
preliminary injunction before deciding the motion to compel arbitration; (2) the
district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction;
(3) the preliminary injunction was not overbroad; and (4) the district court acted
within its power to grant a Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“TUFTA”)
injunction rather than an attachment. We further hold that we do not have
jurisdiction to rule on the motion to compel arbitration.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Stanford, the Receiver, and Adams
This appeal shares its background facts with this Court’s prior Adams
opinion:
This case arises out of an alleged multi-billion-dollar Ponzi
scheme perpetrated by the Stanford companies . . . . According to
the SEC, the companies’ core objective was to sell certificates of
deposit (“CDs”) issued by [SIB]. Stanford achieved and maintained
a high volume of CD sales by promising above-market returns and
falsely assuring investors that the CDs were backed by safe, liquid
investments. For almost 15 years, [SIB] represented that it
consistently earned high returns on its investment of CD sales
proceeds, ranging from 12.7% in 2007 to 13.93% in 1994. In fact,
however, [SIB] had to use new CD sales proceeds to make interest
and redemption payments on pre-existing CDs, because it did not
have sufficient assets, reserves and investments to cover its
liabilities.
The SEC filed suit against R. Allen Stanford, [SIB], and
related companies on February 16, 2009. At the SEC’s request, the
district court issued a temporary order restraining the payment or
expenditure of funds belonging to the Stanford parties. The district
court also appointed [the Receiver] for the Stanford interests and
granted him the power to conserve, hold, manage, and preserve the
value of the receivership estate.

3
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

588 F.3d at 833. At the time the SEC filed suit, Stanford should have held
assets of greater than $7 billion, but actually held assets of less than $1 billion.
Post-appointment, the Receiver froze millions of dollars in assets. These
frozen accounts allegedly contained funds dispersed by Stanford as purported
interest on CDs, reimbursement of CD principal, or compensation to former
Stanford employees. After time for review and assessment, the district court set
a date to thaw the frozen assets and ordered the Receiver to complete his review.
Id. The Receiver subsequently filed a series of claims, naming hundreds of CD
investors and the Employee Defendants as “relief defendants,” and seeking to
recover funds from the frozen accounts. The district court severed the investor
defendants from the Employee Defendants.
The Receiver sought a preliminary injunction to continue the freeze as to
the investor defendants, which the district court granted in part and denied in
part, maintaining the freeze of the accounts of various CD investors who had
received payments of interest on their CDs. In Adams, the Fifth Circuit vacated
the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. Id. at 835. The Adams
Court found that the CD investors could not be properly named as “relief
defendants” because the CD investors had actual ownership interests in the CDs
and any proceeds of the CDs. Id. at 834–35. This Court did not address the
Employee Defendants’ frozen accounts.
B. Post-Adams Developments, the Employee Defendants, and the
Instant Appeal
The remaining frozen accounts represent accounts held at Pershing LLC
and JP Morgan Clearing Corp. by the Employee Defendants. After Adams, the
Receiver amended his complaint against the Employee Defendants, leaving
claims only for fraudulent transfer or unjust enrichment.
The Receiver subsequently reached a series of compromises with the
Employee Defendants, allowing for partial releases of their frozen assets. The

4
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

district court eventually entered an agreed order (the “April 6th Order”),
releasing all but “(1) commissions earned from the sale of SIB CDs; (2) SIB
quarterly bonuses; and (3) branch managing-director quarterly compensation.”
With the account freeze due to expire, the Receiver moved for a
preliminary injunction to continue the freeze as to the funds named in the April
6th Order. The Receiver claimed that the three named classes of funds
represented payments by Stanford to the Employee Defendants from the
proceeds of the Ponzi scheme and therefore constituted fraudulent transfers,
entitling the Receiver to disgorgement of those assets.
The Employee Defendants opposed the preliminary injunction and moved
to compel arbitration. They based their motion to compel on the existence of
Promissory Notes between the Employee Defendants and SGC. The Promissory
Notes concerned upfront loan payments that SGC paid to the Employee
Defendants when they joined Stanford. The Promissory Notes contained a broad
arbitration clause, which provided that any dispute “arising out of or relating to
this Note . . . would be submitted and settled by arbitration pursuant to the
constitution, bylaws, rules, and regulations of the Financial Industry Regulation
Authority (FINRA)” or the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”),
FINRA’s predecessor. The Employee Defendants argued that because the
Receiver “stood in the shoes” of SGC, the Receiver was also bound by the
arbitration clause between the Employee Defendants and SGC.
The district court granted a temporary restraining order, and then granted
the preliminary injunction. The district court did not decide the merits of the
motion to compel arbitration, finding that it had the power to issue a
preliminary injunction pending resolution of that matter. Additionally, the
district court distinguished between a preliminary injunction under TUFTA and
a writ of attachment, expressly granting the former. In granting the preliminary

5
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

injunction, the district court continued the account freeze as to the amounts
named in the April 6th Order. Various Employee Defendants appealed.
II. DISCUSSION
Various groups of the Employee Defendants have set forth five issues on
appeal: (1) whether the district court had the power to grant a preliminary
injunction before deciding the motion to compel arbitration; (2) whether the
district court abused its discretion when it granted the preliminary injunction;
(3) whether the district court’s preliminary injunction is overbroad; (4) whether
the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction rather than a writ
of attachment; and (5) whether the Receiver’s claims against the Employee
Defendants are subject to arbitration. We address the five issues in turn.
A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review for the Preliminary
Injunction Order
We have jurisdiction over the appeal of the district court’s preliminary
injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).5
While “the standard to be applied by the district court in deciding whether
a plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction is stringent, the standard of
appellate review is simply whether the issuance of the injunction, in the light of
the applicable standard, constituted an abuse of discretion.” Doran v. Salem
Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931–32 (1975). Despite this deferential standard, “a
decision grounded in erroneous legal principles is reviewed de novo.” Byrum v.
Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations and quotation marks
omitted). As to each element of the district court’s preliminary-injunction
analysis, the district court’s findings of fact “are subject to a clearly-erroneous
standard of review,” while conclusions of law “are subject to broad review and

5
The parties dispute whether the district court retained the power to grant the
preliminary injunction while the motion to compel arbitration was pending. We address this
dispute below.

6
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

will be reversed if incorrect.” White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir.
1989) (citations and quotation omitted).
B. Power to Grant Preliminary Injunction
1. The Parties’ Arguments
The Employee Defendants argue that the district court lacked power to
issue a preliminary injunction because the Receiver’s claims against them are
subject to arbitration. The Receiver argues that case law, the FINRA rules, and
common sense allows the district court to issue a preliminary injunction pending
its resolution of a motion to compel arbitration. The district court found that it
had power to grant preliminary injunctive relief before deciding whether to
compel arbitration. We agree with the district court.
While the Employee Defendants acknowledge that the grant of a
preliminary injunction lies within a district court’s discretion, they posit that a
motion to compel arbitration strips the district court of its power to grant an
injunction. The Employee Defendants contend that (1) SGC is and was subject
to arbitration for this dispute at all relevant times because it is a member of
FINRA and it is bound under the broad arbitration clause of each Promissory
Note, which requires that any controversy arising out of or related to the Note
be submitted to arbitration pursuant to FINRA rules; (2) the dispute in this
action is arbitrable because the Receiver became subject to the FINRA rules and
the arbitration clauses when he stepped into the shoes of the received entity he
represents; and (3) the FINRA rules do not contemplate pre-arbitration
injunctive relief nor allow court-ordered injunctions lasting longer than 15 days.
The Employee Defendants argue that because the dispute is arbitrable and
subject to the FINRA rules, the district court did not have the discretion to issue
injunctive relief; it only had the power to decide the motion to compel
arbitration. See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985)
(“By its terms, the Act leaves no room for the exercise of discretion by a district

7
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to
proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been
signed.”).
The Employee Defendants also argue that cases from both sides of a circuit
split support their contention that the district court does not have power to enter
an injunction. The circuit split concerns the power of a district court to issue an
injunction while arbitration is pending. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged the
circuit split in RGI, Inc. v. Tucker & Associates, Inc., 858 F.2d 227, 229 (5th Cir.
1988), but did not enter the fray.6 The Employee Defendants contend that once
again we may avoid the fray and still decide the issue in their favor because both
the Eighth Circuit, on one side of the split, and the Seventh Circuit, on the other
side of the split, would not permit an injunction here. The Eighth Circuit held
that “where the [Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)] is applicable to the dispute
between the parties and no qualifying language has been alleged, the district
court errs in granting injunctive relief” because the judicial inquiry required to
determine “the propriety of injunctive relief necessarily would inject the court
into the merits of issues more appropriately left to the arbitrator.” Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Hovey, 726 F.2d 1286, 1292 (8th Cir.
1984). The Seventh Circuit held that the district court may only issue injunctive
relief that is effective only until the arbitration panel is able to address whether
the equitable relief should remain in effect. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith, Inc. v. Salvano, 999 F.2d 211, 215–16 (7th Cir. 1993).
The Receiver responds that the district court’s broad power to preserve the
status quo is well-established and supported by case law, FINRA rules, and

6
In RGI, we found that we need not decide whether a district court may issue a
preliminary injunction while arbitration is pending because the agreement in that case clearly
provided for preliminary injunctions. Id. at 231. The parties do not attempt to establish or
distinguish similar facts here.

8
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

common sense. The Receiver notes that “even after a district court decides that
a case is subject to arbitration, most federal authority permits the district court
to issue a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending
arbitration.” Further, the Receiver points out that under FINRA Rule 13804,
(1) parties can seek court-ordered temporary injunctive relief even where the
case is subject to mandatory arbitration, and (2) if a court issues a temporary
injunction in a dispute subject to arbitration, an arbitration panel will hold a
hearing within 15 days to determine whether to continue the injunctive relief.
The Receiver argues that if FINRA rules allow court-ordered injunctive relief
when a party loses on the motion to compel arbitration, then he is entitled to
such relief while the motion is still pending. Finally, the Receiver notes that a
rule that would prohibit the district court from preserving the status quo when
a motion to compel arbitration is filed would enable any party “to strip the trial
court of its authority to enjoin the party’s conduct simply by filing a motion to
compel arbitration.”
2. Analysis
In its order, the district court relied on its equitable powers to preserve the
status quo, and expressly reserved the question of whether the Receiver’s claims
were subject to arbitration. In so doing, the district court noted that the cases
in the circuit split did not specifically address the issue in this case: whether a
court may preserve the status quo pending its resolution of a motion to compel
arbitration, not pending the actual arbitration itself. We agree with the district
court that it court can grant preliminary relief before deciding whether to compel
arbitration.
The language of the FAA does not touch on the ancillary power of the
federal court to act before it decides whether the dispute is arbitrable. The
federal law of arbitration is governed by the FAA. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16. As the
Employee Defendants note, the Supreme Court has consistently expressed a

9
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

strong preference for arbitration. See Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1,
10 (1984) (“In enacting § 2 of the [FAA], Congress declared a national policy
favoring arbitration . . . .”). However, these sections do not provide guidance on
the issue of whether a court may issue a preliminary injunction before deciding
whether the dispute is arbitrable. Section 3 provides:
If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the
United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an
agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such
suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such
suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an
agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of
the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with
the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is
not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.
9 U.S.C. § 3 (emphasis added). Similarly, § 4 provides:
A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of
another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may
petition any United States district court . . . for an order directing
that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such
agreement. . . . The court shall hear the parties, and upon being
satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the
failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an
order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance
with the terms of the agreement.
9 U.S.C. § 4 (emphasis added). Section 3 only speaks to what the court should
do once it is satisfied that the issue is referable to arbitration. Similarly, § 4
mandates that the court must direct the parties to proceed to arbitration only
after it is satisfied that there is no issue as to whether a party failed to comply
with the arbitration agreement. Both of these sections speak only to situations
after the court has decided arbitration must ensue.
Here, the district court has yet to make up its mind as to arbitrability.
The district court relied on its equitable powers to preserve the status quo, but
expressly reserved the issue of whether the Receiver’s claims were subject to

10
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

arbitration for resolution at a later date. Nothing in the FAA controls a district
court’s approach to its docket. While the Supreme Court has stated that
“Congress’[s] clear intent, in the [FAA], [was] to move the parties to an
arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly and easily as
possible[,]” there is nothing to control the district court’s expeditious
determination of arbitrability. Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
460 U.S. 1, 22 (1983) (emphasis added).
The cases cited by the Employee Defendants also do not bar the exercise
of the district court’s equitable powers here. The RGI Court found that “[t]he
crux of the problem [in the circuit split] is whether the commands of the [FAA]
require that a federal court immediately divest itself of any power to act to
maintain the status quo once it decides that the case before it is arbitrable.” RGI,
858 F.2d at 228–29 (emphasis added). Here, however, the district court has not
yet decided whether the case is arbitrable and thus the circuit-split cases are not
applicable. The Receiver’s request for a preliminary injunction was entered
before the motion to compel arbitration. We agree with the district court that
if we were to reverse and hold that the district court must stop everything and
consider the motion to compel arbitration, such a holding
would create a harsh procedural rule: in order to avoid irreparable
injury, motions to compel arbitration where a request for injunctive
relief is involved must be resolved before any temporary restraining
order expires. Such a rule would be both burdensome for district
courts and impracticable, given the time it takes motions to compel
arbitration to become ripe for ruling, even if no discovery is
required.
Janvey v. Alguire, No. 3:09-CV-724-N, at 6 n.5 (N.D. Tex June 6, 2010) (order
granting preliminary injunction).
Though the circuit-split cases do not apply here, the reasoning of those
circuits holding that a court may issue an injunction pending arbitration applies

11
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

here.7 As explained by the First Circuit, “the congressional desire to enforce
arbitration agreements would frequently be frustrated if the courts were
precluded from issuing preliminary injunctive relief to preserve the status quo
pending arbitration and, ipso facto, the meaningfulness of the arbitration
process.” Teradyne v. Mostek Corp., 797 F.2d 43, 51 (1st Cir.1986). Here, the
district court merely sought to preserve the status quo before deciding the
motion to compel arbitration, and by doing so they sought to preserve the
meaningfulness of any arbitration that might take place.
Even if applicable to the facts here, the Seventh Circuit case cited by the
Employee Defendants would not bar the preliminary injunction issued by the
district court. In Salvano, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court may
issue injunctive relief only until the arbitration panel is able to address whether
the equitable relief should remain in effect. 999 F.2d at 215–16. In the instant
case, the district court expressly stated that if it decides to compel arbitration,
the defendants may ask the district court to reconsider the preliminary
injunction in light of Fifth Circuit precedent and the terms of the contracts.
The matter of arbitrability has not yet been decided, and the district court
did not overreach when it decided the preliminary injunction motion.
C. Decision to Grant Preliminary Injunction
The four elements a plaintiff must establish to secure a preliminary
injunction are:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial
threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that
the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any
harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the
grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.

7
Given that the facts at issue here do not require us to enter the circuit split, we
reserve for another day the issues of whether a district court divests itself of the discretion to
maintain the status quo once it decides the case before it is arbitrable and, if not, what the
limits of that discretion may be.

12
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 13 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

Byrum, 566 F.3d at 445 (quotation marks omitted). The Receiver bore the
burden of establishing each element. Bluefield Water Ass’n, Inc. v. City of
Starkville, Miss., 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court analyzed
each of the elements in its grant of the preliminary injunction to the Receiver.
The Employee Defendants challenge all aspects of the district court’s analysis.
We disagree with the Employee Defendants that the district court abused its
discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. We address each element in
turn, reviewing the district court’s ultimate decision to grant the preliminary
injunction and its findings of fact for abuse of discretion and its legal
determinations de novo. Byrum, 566 F.3d at 445.
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The district court did not err in finding that the Receiver carried his
burden of proving likelihood of success on the merits. To satisfy the first
element of likelihood of success on the merits, the Receiver’s evidence in the
preliminary injunction proceeding “is not required to prove [his] entitlement to
summary judgment.” Byrum, 566 F.3d at 446; see also CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT,
ARTHUR R. MILLER, MARY KAY KANE, 11A FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
§ 2948.3 (2d ed. 1995) (“All courts agree that plaintiff must present a prima facie
case but need not show that he is certain to win.” (footnote omitted)). To assess
the likelihood of success on the merits, we look to “standards provided by the
substantive law.” Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356, 358 (5th Cir. 1990)
(citation omitted). Here, the Receiver contends that there is liability under
TUFTA. Under TUFTA, the trial court may find substantial likelihood of
success on the merits when it is “presented with evidence of intent to defraud
the creditor.” See Tanguy v. Laux, 259 S.W.3d 851, 858 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (citing Tel. Equip. Network, Inc. v. TA/Westchase Place,
Ltd., 80 S.W.3d 601, 609 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.)).

13
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 14 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

The Receiver and the Employee Defendants offer competing versions of
what evidence is necessary to satisfy TUFTA’s requirements. The Bennett
Defendants contend that the Receiver failed to establish that Stanford operated
as a Ponzi scheme.8 The FA Defendants argue that because they received their
compensation from SGC and not SIB, they did not receive compensation from the
Ponzi scheme. The Employee Defendants contend that the district court erred
by allowing the Receiver to group all the former employees of Stanford together
rather than requiring the Receiver to prove that each individual Defendant
received fraudulent transfers of money from the Stanford scheme. Finally, the
Employee Defendants also contend that the Receiver failed to follow the
heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The
Receiver responds that (1) there is sufficient evidence to prove Stanford operated
as a Ponzi scheme from the very beginning; (2) the Receiver has presented
sufficient evidence to prove that each individual Defendant received transfers
of money from the Stanford Ponzi scheme; and (3) this Court does not need to
decide whether the Receiver’s pleading satisfies the rules, and even if it did, Rule
9(b) does not apply to fraudulent transfer cases.
The district court agreed with the Receiver. It found that there was a
Ponzi scheme and held that “‘transfers made from a Ponzi scheme are
presumptively made with intent to defraud, because a Ponzi scheme is, as a
matter of law, insolvent from inception.’” Janvey v. Alguire, No. 3:09-CV-724-N,
at 10 (N.D. Tex June 6, 2010) (order granting preliminary injunction) (quoting
Quilling v. Schonsky, 247 F. App’x 583, 586 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (citing
Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2006))). Therefore, the district

8
The Bennett Defendants do not tie this argument to any element of the preliminary
injunction standard, instead lodging a general objection to the district court’s determination
that Stanford operated as a Ponzi scheme. Because the Ponzi scheme determination has the
greatest impact on the likelihood of success element, we address the Bennett Defendants’
argument in this section.

14
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 15 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

court found that the Receiver satisfied his obligation to show an actual intent to
defraud under TUFTA. The district court further found that the Receiver
presented sufficient evidence that the assets implicated by the injunction
request “represented transfers of Stanford CD proceeds.”
We address first whether the Receiver presented sufficient evidence that
Stanford operated as a Ponzi scheme, then discuss whether the Receiver
adequately established that the Employee Defendants received proceeds of a
fraudulent transfer, and finally address whether this satisfies the requirements
of this element.
a. Whether Stanford Operated as a Ponzi Scheme
The Bennett Defendants spend the bulk of their brief disputing whether
Stanford operated as a Ponzi scheme ab initio. The FA Defendants separate
SGC from SIB, and claim that the Receiver failed to establish that SGC, the
entity that provided compensation to the FA Defendants, was a Ponzi scheme.
In large part, the Receiver relies upon the guilty plea of James Davis (the “Davis
Plea”), the former Chief Financial Officer of SIB, to demonstrate that the
Stanford enterprise operated as a Ponzi scheme. The district court relied upon
the Davis Plea in its order, along with the declarations of the Receiver’s forensic
accountant, Karyl Van Tassel, to find that a Ponzi scheme existed. We find that
the district court did not err in finding that the Stanford enterprise operated as
a Ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi scheme is a “fraudulent investment scheme in which money
contributed by later investors generates artificially high dividends or returns for
the original investors, whose example attracts even larger investments.”
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1198 (8th ed. 2004); see also U.S. v. Setser, 568 F.3d
482, 486 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[I]n a classic Ponzi scheme, as new investments [come]
in . . . , some of the new money [is] used to pay earlier investors.”). The Second
Circuit also provides a good description of a Ponzi scheme:

15
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 16 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

A [P]onzi scheme is a scheme whereby a corporation operates and
continues to operate at a loss. The corporation gives the appearance
of being profitable by obtaining new investors and using those
investments to pay for the high premiums promised to earlier
investors. The effect of such a scheme is to put the corporation
farther and farther into debt by incurring more and more liability
and to give the corporation the false appearance of profitability in
order to obtain new investors.
Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085, 1088 n.3 (2d Cir. 1995). This
Circuit has found that a Ponzi scheme “is, as a matter of law, insolvent from its
inception.” Warfield, 436 F.3d at 558 (citing Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1,
7–8 (1924)).
The Davis Plea and the Van Tassel Declarations provide sufficient
evidence to support a conclusion that there is a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits that the Stanford enterprise operated as Ponzi scheme. In his
plea, Davis, who is singularly positioned to provide insight into the workings of
Stanford, admitted that the “continued routine false reporting . . . upon which
CD investors routinely relied in making their investment decisions, in effect,
created an ever-widening hole between reported assets and actual liabilities,
causing the creation of a massive Ponzi scheme whereby CD redemptions
ultimately could only be accomplished with new infusions of investor funds.”
This statement reflects a classic Ponzi scheme and directly contradicts the
Bennett Defendants’ assertion that the district court relied upon a novel
definition of a Ponzi scheme in its order. The Van Tassel Declarations also
provide clear, numerical support for the creative reverse engineering undertaken
by Stanford executives to accomplish the Ponzi scheme:
We found within SIB’s accounting records worksheets used to derive
fictitious SIB revenues back to 2004. The Ponzi scheme
conspirators would simply determine what level of revenues SIB
needed to report in order to both look good to investors and
regulators and to purport to cover CD obligations and other
expenses. They would then back into that total amount by

16
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 17 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

assigning equally fictitious revenue amounts to each category
(equity, fixed income, precious metals, alternative) of a fictitious
investment allocation.
Van Tassel then goes on to specifically itemize how specific returns were based
on fictitious asset totals.
The Bennett Defendants’ argument that the Receiver failed to establish,
and that the district court incorrectly assumed, that the Stanford entities
constituted a Ponzi scheme ab initio is unavailing. The Davis Plea, when read
as a whole, provides sufficient evidence for the district court to assume that the
Stanford enterprise constituted a Ponzi scheme ab initio. In outlining the
factual basis for the guilty plea, the Davis Plea describes how in 1988, Stanford
directed Davis to “make false entries into the general ledger for the purpose of
reporting false revenues and false investment portfolio balances to the banking
regulators” shortly after opening Guardian International Bank, as SIB was then
known, in Montserrat. The Plea further states that Stanford closed Guardian’s
operations in Montserrat in 1989 and moved the banking operations to Antigua
under the name of SIB to avoid heightened scrutiny from bank regulators in
Montserrat.
Finally, the FA Defendants’ position that SGC should be separated from
SIB is of no moment. As made clear by the Van Tassel Declarations, SGC
received the bulk of its revenue from commissions for the sale of the SIB CDs
and fees for other services it provided to SIB related to the CD investment
portfolio. The Receiver seeks to recoup those proceeds because they were the
assets of the alleged Ponzi scheme. The district court did not err when it found,
for the purposes of this preliminary injunction proceeding, that Stanford
operated as a Ponzi scheme.
b. Whether the Receiver Offered Sufficient Proof of the
Source of the Frozen Accounts.

17
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 18 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

The Employee Defendants also argue that the district court erred in
grouping all the transactions rather than examining evidence of claims against
individuals. Contrary to the Employee Defendants’ assertion, the district court
found that the Receiver came forward with “competent evidence that each
individual [Employee Defendant] received transfers of money representing CD
sale proceeds from the Stanford Ponzi scheme.” We agree. The Receiver’s
evidence is a spreadsheet in the Van Tassel Declarations that lists each former
employee, the form of compensation (loan, commission, or quarterly bonus), and
the amount that Stanford paid each employee. The Van Tassel Declarations
sufficiently establish that Stanford paid the Employee Defendants from the
alleged Ponzi scheme for the purposes of the preliminary injunction proceeding.
c. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The district court did not err in finding the Receiver carried his burden of
proving a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for his TUFTA claim.
TUFTA requires that the debtor transferor make the transfer “with actual
intent to . . . defraud any creditor of the debtor.” TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN.
§ 24.005(a)(1). “In this circuit, proving that [a transferor] operated as a Ponzi
scheme establishes the fraudulent intent behind the transfers it made.” SEC v.
Res. Dev. Int’l, LLC, 487 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Warfield, 436 F.3d
at 558). In other words, “‘the transferees’ knowing participation is irrelevant
under the statute’ for purposes of establishing the premise (as opposed to
liability for) a fraudulent transfer.” Id. (analyzing TUFTA) (quoting Warfield,
436 F.3d at 559 (analyzing Washington state law)). The Receiver carried his
burden of proving that he is likely to succeed in his prima facie case by providing
sufficient evidence that a Ponzi scheme existed—thereby obviating the need to
prove fraudulent intent of the transferees—and sufficient proof that each
individual received transfers of money from the Ponzi scheme. The Defendants
did not refute this by showing that they are likely to succeed in proving a

18
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 19 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

TUFTA statutory affirmative defense. Consequently, the district court did not
err in finding a substantial likelihood of success.
The parties dispute whether Rule 9(b) applies to this case and whether
this affects the district court’s finding of a substantial likelihood of success. The
Employee Defendants argue that the Receiver was obligated to abide by Rule
9(b)’s heightened pleading standards for his fraud claims, and that he failed to
meet this standard when he “lump[ed] together” the claims against all former
Stanford employees. The Receiver asserts that Rule 9(b) does not apply to
fraudulent transfer cases. We need not and do not address the issue of whether
heightened pleading is required. As the district court noted in its Preliminary
Injunction Order, it has not yet ruled on the defendants’ pending motions to
dismiss. The only question that the district court had to decide on this element
in the preliminary injunction proceeding was whether the Receiver had shown
a substantial likelihood of ultimately succeeding on the merits, see Doe v.
Marshall, 622 F.2d 118, 119 n.2 (5th Cir. 1980), potential procedural hurdles
notwithstanding. The Receiver carried this burden.
2. Threat of Irreparable Harm
The Employee Defendants argue that the Receiver did not carry his
burden of proving the second element of the preliminary injunction standard:
threat of irreparable harm. The Employee Defendants argue that because the
Receiver merely seeks a return of the fraudulently transferred CD proceeds,
there is no threat of irreparable harm. The Employee Defendants contend that
difficulty securing economic damages is insufficient to demonstrate irreparable
harm. The Employee Defendants further argue that the Receiver was required
to establish a likelihood that each individual defendant would remove or
dissipate the frozen assets but for a preliminary injunction. The Receiver replies
that TUFTA itself creates a presumption of dissipation. The Receiver then
argues that its inability to collect a money judgment should the Employee

19
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 20 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

Defendants dissipate the frozen accounts is sufficient to show a threat of
irreparable harm. Finally, the Receiver agrees with the district court that he is
not required to make an individualized showing of likely dissipation.
The district court found that “dissipation of the assets that are the subject
of this suit . . . would impair the Court’s ability to grant an effective remedy,”
particularly because much of the relief the Receiver seeks under TUFTA is
“equitable in nature and involves the assets that are . . . frozen.” The district
court further held that the Receiver need not show that each individual
defendant would dissipate the frozen assets absent an injunction. The court
reasoned that the Receiver was entitled to a presumption that the Employee
Defendants would dissipate the frozen assets absent a preliminary injunction
because the assets were fraudulently transferred as part of a Ponzi scheme. We
find that the Receiver carried his burden of proving this element.
To satisfy the second element of the preliminary injunction standard, the
Receiver must demonstrate that if the district court denied the grant of a
preliminary injunction, irreparable harm would result. Holland Am. Ins. Co. v.
Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985).9 In general, a harm is
irreparable where there is no adequate remedy at law, such as monetary
damages. Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th
Cir. Unit B 1981); Parker v. Dunlop, 517 F.2d 785, 787 (5th Cir. 1975). However,
the mere fact that economic damages may be available does not always mean
that a remedy at law is “adequate.” For example, some courts have found that
a remedy at law is inadequate if legal redress may be obtained only by pursuing

9
The Receiver argues that TUFTA effectively creates a statutory presumption of
irreparable harm. We disagree. TUFTA specifically provides that the claimant may obtain
“an injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset
transferred.” TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 24.008(a)(3)(A). However, the statute explicitly states
that this remedy is “subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with applicable
rules of civil procedure.” Id. Clearly, TUFTA contemplates the application of equitable
standards, encompassing the usual elements necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction.

20
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 21 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

a multiplicity of actions. See, e.g., Lee v. Bickell, 292 U.S. 415, 421 (1934) (“we
are not in doubt, the multiplicity of actions necessary for redress at law [is]
sufficient . . . to uphold the remedy by injunction”). We have previously stated
that where a district court has determined that a meaningful decision on the
merits would be impossible without an injunction, the district court may
maintain the status quo and issue a preliminary injunction to protect a remedy,
including a damages remedy, when the freezing of the assets is limited to the
property in dispute or its direct, traceable proceeds. See Productos Carnic, S.A.
v. Cent. Amer. Beef & Seafood Trading Co., 621 F.2d 683, 686–87 (5th Cir. 1980)
(“[E]ven were [plaintiff’s] remedy limited to damages, an injunction may issue
to protect that remedy.”). Finally, a showing of “[s]peculative injury is not
sufficient; there must be more than an unfounded fear on the part of the
applicant.” Id. (citing Carter v. Heard, 593 F.2d 10, 12 (5th Cir.1979)).
We agree with the district court that the Receiver carried his burden of
proving this element. First, we agree with the district court that the “Receiver
successfully show[ed] that the threatened harm—dissipation of the assets that
are the subject of this suit—would impair the [district court’s] ability to grant an
effective remedy.” The relief that the Receiver ultimately seeks is equitable in
nature; the Receiver seeks “avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent
necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim.” TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 24.008(a)(1).
In his complaint, the Receiver asks the court for an order (1) establishing that
the CD proceeds received by the Employee Defendants are property of the
Receivership Estate held pursuant to a constructive trust for the benefit of the
creditors, and (2) allowing him to withdraw proceeds from the segregated escrow
account and add them to the Receivership Estate. He does not seek damages
for breach of contract or tort. If the defendants were to dissipate or transfer
these assets out of the jurisdiction, the district court would not be able to grant
the effective remedy, either in equity or in law, that the Receiver seeks. The

21
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 22 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

assets that the Receiver requests stay frozen are assets that are directly
traceable to the Stanford Ponzi scheme and are the subject of this dispute. The
Receiver merely asks that those assets continue to be held immovable while his
case proceeds to judgment. We do not find that the district court erred in
determining that a preliminary injunction was appropriate to protect against
monetary asset dissipation.
The party seeking a preliminary injunction must also show that the
threatened harm is more than mere speculation. Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d at
997. Here, the Receiver provided evidence of a massive Ponzi scheme and proof
that each individual received proceeds from the fraudulent scheme. This is
sufficient to prove the likelihood of each individual removing or dissipating the
frozen assets but for the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we find that the
district court did not err in finding that irreparable harm would result in the
absence of a preliminary injunction.
3. Balance of Harms and Service of the Public Interest
On these elements, the district court weighed the interests of the
Employee Defendants against the interests represented by the Receiver (i.e., the
interests of the creditors) and looked to the broader ramifications of any
potential recovery by the Receiver. The district court noted the extremely
limited array of assets remaining to provide compensation to Stanford Ponzi
scheme victims. The record supports the fact that Stanford, when it entered
receivership, was grossly undercapitalized. Additionally, the Receiver and the
Employee Defendants reached consent agreements to thaw all but certain
discrete categories of compensation. These last elements of the district court’s
preliminary injunction analysis implicate the discretion of that court to craft a
remedy and weigh the evidence. We do not believe that the district court abused
its discretion when it found that these elements weighed in favor of the Receiver.
D. Scope of District Court’s Grant of Preliminary Injunction

22
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 23 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

The Employee Defendants also challenge the breadth of the injunction.
On appeal, the Employee Defendants renew a number of arguments that they
brought before the district court. First, the Employee Defendants contend that
any frozen IRA account is exempt from the Receiver’s claim. Second, the FA
Defendants argue that the account freeze improperly extends to pre-tax amounts
because they already paid taxes on those earnings. Third, the FA Defendants
argue that they are entitled to an offset of amounts they lost on their personal
investments in Stanford CDs. We address each of the Employee Defendants’
arguments in turn.
1. Frozen IRA Accounts
According to Texas law, IRA accounts are exempt from seizure. TEX. PROP.
CODE § 42.0021(a). However, the party claiming the exemption must establish
that she has a legal right to the funds in the IRA to be entitled to the exemption.
Jones v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 131 S.W.3d 261, 270 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004,
no pet.). It is undisputed that some of the frozen accounts are IRA accounts.
The Employee Defendants had the burden of proving that they have a right to
the funds in the accounts, particularly in light of the Receiver’s extensive
evidence that the Employee Defendants received these funds as a fraudulent
transfer from the Stanford Ponzi scheme. The mere fact that an account is an
IRA account does not automatically entitle the Employee Defendants to the
exemption; it does not relieve the Employee Defendants of carrying the burden
of proving they have a legal right to the account. Consequently, the district
court did not err when it kept the IRA accounts frozen under the preliminary
injunction.
2. Tax Matters
The FA Defendants argue that the Receiver improperly calculated the
amounts represented by the account freeze because the Receiver did not account
for taxes paid by the Employee Defendants on the compensation. The district

23
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 24 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

court rejected this argument, relying heavily on Donell v. Kowell, in which the
Ninth Circuit declined to offset for taxes paid. 533 F.3d 762, 779 (9th Cir. 2008).
The Ninth Circuit first reasoned that if it allowed offsets for amounts paid in
good faith as taxes, logic would suggest that the court also permits offsets for
bank transfer fees, other fund management fees, and a myriad of other expenses.
The court went on to state, “There is simply no principle by which to limit such
offsets . . . . If each net winner could shield his gains in their entirety in this
manner, the purpose of UFTA would be defeated, and the multitude of victims
who lost their entire investment would receive no recovery.” Id. at 779. Second,
the court found that allowing offsets in even a few areas like taxes paid would
“introduce complex problems of proof and tracing into each case,” thereby
“severely reduc[ing] the receiver’s ability to gather what few assets can be
located in the wake of a failed Ponzi scheme.” Id.
Although, as the FA Defendants note, the Donell case involved taxes paid
by an investor after receiving fraudulent funds, id. at 778, we find the Donell
reasoning persuasive, particularly because there is no basis for this offset in
TUFTA. We do not find the district court erred in declining to offset the prepaid
tax amounts with respect to the preliminary injunction.
3. Losses on Personal Investments
The FA Defendants also argue that the Receiver’s figures do not account
for the Defendants’ losses on their own investments in Stanford CDs. The
defendants have not offered any case law or statutory language on point, nor did
we find any authority entitling the Employee Defendants to offsets for their
personal losses on Stanford investments. We agree with the district court that
the Defendants must seek these amounts through the Receiver’s claims process
like other creditors.
E. Type of Equitable Relief Granted

24
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 25 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

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.
F. Motion to Compel Arbitration

10
Although the Telephone Equipment court used the acronym “UFTA,” it is apparent
that the court cited to and analyzed provisions of TUFTA. Id. at 607 (“UFTA lists 11,
non-exhaustive ‘badges of fraud’ to assist in determining whether the debtor made the transfer
with the requisite fraudulent intent.”) (citing TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 24.005(a)(1)).

25
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 26 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

The parties also dispute whether the Receiver’s claims against the
Employee Defendants are subject to arbitration. The district court did not
decide the motion to compel arbitration. Both parties ask this Court to decide
the motion in the first instance. “We have appellate jurisdiction where an order
is final, [the order] falls within a specific class of interlocutory orders made
appealable by statute, or the issue falls within some jurisprudential exception.”
Silver Star Enter., Inc. v. M/V Saramacca, 19 F.3d 1008, 1013 (5th Cir. 1994).
As there was no final or interlocutory order, and we could find no jurisprudential
exception, we do not have jurisdiction to decide the motion to compel arbitration.
WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FED. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION 2D
§ 3291.1 (2011) (“Ordinarily the scope of appellate review under § 1292(a)(1) is
confined to the issues necessary to determine the propriety of the interlocutory
order itself. The curtailed nature of most preliminary injunction proceedings
means that the broad issues of the action are not apt to be ripe for review, most
obviously as to issues that have not yet been decided by the trial court . . . .”); see
also Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Recruit U.S.A., Inc., 939 F.2d 746, 757
(9th Cir. 1991) (declining to rule on sanctions motion on an interlocutory appeal
of a preliminary injunction where the district court had yet to rule on the
sanctions motion).
There is no final order here. There is no ruling on the motion to compel
arbitration. Further, even if there were a ruling on the motion to compel
arbitration, such a ruling is not a final judgment ending litigation on the merits
and leaving nothing for the court to do but execute judgment. Silver Star Enter.,
19 F.3d at 1013. Thus, even if the district court had ruled on the motion and
issued an order, it would not be a final order.
Because there is no order, there is also no statutory basis for interlocutory
appellate review. Section 1292(a) provides appellate jurisdiction for the appeal

26
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 27 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

of the grant of the preliminary injunction, but it does not provide appellate
jurisdiction for the motion to compel arbitration. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Section
16 of the FAA also does not give this Court appellate jurisdiction to rule on the
motion to compel arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 16. Section 16 describes when a party
may appeal an arbitrability determination. Here, the district court did not
decide or issue an order on the motion to compel arbitration. Consequently, it
does not fall under any of the enumerated § 16 situations in which an immediate
appeal of an arbitrability determination is allowed. There is no order denying
a petition under section 4 of FAA to order arbitration to proceed, nor is there a
final decision with respect to an arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1), (3) (stating
when an appeal may be taken from an arbitrability determination).
Finally, we cannot find any case that sets forth a jurisprudential exception
with facts similar to the instant case that would allow us to exercise appellate
jurisdiction.11 There is language, however, in In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation
(No. II), that potentially could be applicable here. 200 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2000).
In that case, we stated that it was permissible to decide “certain related issues
that have been sufficiently developed so as not to require further development
at the trial court level.” Id. at 319–20. In that case, we considered an
interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant from
settling federal claims in other cases without the court’s approval. Id. at 319.
In the same interlocutory appeal, we also considered the district court’s denial

11
The 76 FA Defendants cite Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction
Corp. for the proposition that the Supreme Court had expressly approved an appellate court
sua sponte determination that the underlying dispute is arbitrable. (76 FA Defendant Br. at
35 (citing Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Co., 460 U.S. 1 (1983)).) Moses H.
Cone, however, was decided before Section 16 of the FAA was enacted in 1988. Section 16
delineates when the courts of appeals may review arbitrability determinations. 9 U.S.C. § 16.
As we note above, the current procedural posture does not fall under any of the enumerated
§ 16 situations.

27
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 28 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, which had been pending at the time of the
district court’s preliminary injunction decision. Id. at 319–20.
The instant case, however, is distinguishable from In re Lease Oil. First,
by the time we considered the appeal in In re Lease Oil, the lower court had
already come to a decision on the motion to dismiss. Here, the district court has
not decided the motion to compel arbitration. If we decided the motion to compel
arbitration, we would not be acting as an appellate court, but as a trial court.
Second, in In re Lease Oil, we reviewed the nonappealable order because
the defendant only became a party to the preliminary injunction because its
motion to dismiss was denied. 200 F.3d at 319 (“The court subsequently denied
the motion, thereby including Mobil in the injunction.”) Thus, the two issues
were so entangled that they both merited decision on interlocutory appeal. See
Byrum, 566 F.3d at 449 (holding that this Court may only exercise pendent
appellate jurisdiction in “rare and exceptional circumstances” where “an
appellate order is inextricably intertwined with an unappealable order or where
review of the unappealable order is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the
appealable order” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Here, even if the district court had subsequently decided the motion to
compel arbitration in the Employee Defendants’ favor, the Employee Defendants
would still be subject to the preliminary injunction until the district court or the
arbitration panel reconsidered the preliminary injunction. Meaningful review
of the main issues on appeal—the district court’s power to issue a preliminary
injunction and whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the
preliminary injunction—are not dependent upon the outcome of the motion to
compel arbitration or vice versa. Thus, the motion to compel arbitration is not
inextricably intertwined with the preliminary injunction. We do not find that
this issue falls within a jurisprudential exception, and we refuse to carve out a
new exception here.

28
 Case: 10-10617 Document: 00511548890 Page: 29 Date Filed: 07/22/2011

No. 10-10617

Because we do not have appellate jurisdiction under any of the criteria set
forth in Silver Star Enterprises, we remand this issue back to the district court
for a ruling in the first instance.
CONCLUSION
The Receiver is in an unenviable position: although the Stanford estate
has many thousands of claimants, there are startlingly few assets to disperse to
the Stanford victims. In this appeal concerning the Receiver’s attempt to
marshal estate assets, we hold: (1) The district court acted within its power
when it considered and decided the motion for preliminary injunction before
deciding the outstanding motion to compel arbitration; (2) The district court did
not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction; and (3) The
preliminary injunction was not an attachment, nor was it overly broad. We
remand the motion to compel arbitration for a ruling in the first instance.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

29