Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308 (1999)

Reviewed by Elizabeth A. Tresp, JD, LL.M., trust & probate litigator · Updated August 2026

What the Court actually held

The reasoning: at equity, “a general creditor (one without a judgment) had no cognizable interest, either at law or in equity, in the property of his debtor, and therefore could not interfere with the debtor’s use of that property.” A creditor’s bill required a prior judgment. Federal equity power under the Judiciary Act of 1789 reaches only remedies traditionally available in the English Court of Chancery in 1789, and the Court declined to import the English Mareva injunction.

Footnote 7, read this before citing the case

How it is commonly miscited

1. “You cannot freeze assets before judgment.” False as stated. The holding is confined to a preliminary injunction, in federal court, sought by an unsecured creditor, on a legal claim for money damages, where no equitable interest in specific property is asserted.
2. “Grupo Mexicano protects asset protection planning from pre-judgment attack.” Footnote 7 reserves exactly that question. Courts routinely distinguish the case where the plaintiff asserts an equitable claim, disgorgement, constructive trust, fraudulent conveyance, tracing, or where a statute supplies the authority.
3. It does not touch Fed. R. Civ. P. 64, which authorizes state-law pre-judgment attachment and garnishment. The Court cited Rule 64 as a reason against the injunction, not as unavailable.
4. It does not touch a court’s power over parties already before it after judgment, or contempt and repatriation orders, see Affordable Media and Lawrence.

The planning lesson

Do not build a plan on the belief that assets cannot be frozen before judgment. In the disputes that actually arise around asset protection, the claim is usually pleaded as a fraudulent transfer or in equity, precisely the ground the Supreme Court left open.

Why this matters for your plan

Reading the cases is not an academic exercise. Every one of these decisions turned on something a planner controls: when the structure was created, how much control the settlor kept, whether the governing-law choice was backed by real contacts, and whether the client told the truth on the record. We build to the way these disputes are actually litigated, because Elizabeth litigates them. To discuss how your situation maps onto this body of law, call (858) 755-6672.