Appellate Rule 24.4(a) sets out the matters that an appellate court may review with respect to posting of supersedeas. Review of a post-judgment injunction order under Rule 24.2(d) is not among those items. Appellant Hydroscience Technologies, Inc. obtained review of an order granting a post-judgment injunction in Hydroscience Technologies, Inc. v. Hydroscience, Inc.
The trial court granted a judgment declaring that Hydroscience, Inc. (HI) owned a specified number of shares in Hydroscience Technologies, Inc. (HTI) and ordered inspection of HTI’s company books. HTI appealed. HI sought a post-judgment injunction to prevent HTI from transferring assets outside the ordinary course of business. The court of appeals opinion does not indicate if the injunction was sought in connection with the setting of a supersedeas bond, but it appears that there was a supersedeas order issued and that too was challenged. The trial court granted the injunction, and HTI challenged the injunction by motion in the Dallas Court of Appeals. In a challenge to the sufficiency of they evidence as to a finding that HTI would likely dissipate assets, the court of appeals deterimined that there was some evidence that the CEO had stated he would simply start a new business and move HTI’s business to the new company. There was also evidence that a new company had been created. The court of appeals concluded that the omission of language limiting the injunction to actions taken to avoid satisfaction of the judgment was not an abuse of discretion because the trial court made conclusions of law that the point of the injunction was to prevent actions taken to avoid satisfaction of the judgment. The court also found that it was not an abuse of discretion to impose a requirement that any transfer must be for fair value in return because only those transactions would be transactions in the normal course of business. The court’s opinion may be found here.