The U.S. Supreme Court case Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A., et al. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., et al., 1998 revolved around the issue of whether federal courts have the authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing a debtor from transferring assets in which no lien or equitable interest is claimed while an unsecured creditor's suit for money damages is pending. The court ruled in favor of Grupo Mexicano with a 5-4 decision stating that such power did not exist under traditional principles of equity and was not granted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 or Section 3102(c) of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR). This ruling clarified that unless there are specific statutory provisions allowing it, creditors cannot prevent debtors from disposing their assets before judgment has been rendered on an unsecured claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision was overly restrictive and failed to consider modern developments in equity jurisprudence. She contended that federal courts have inherent power to issue preliminary injunctions necessary to preserve the status quo pending final resolution of a legal dispute. This includes freezing assets when there is evidence they may be dissipated before judgment can be rendered or enforced. The majority's view, she suggested, would leave plaintiffs without an effective remedy in many cases where defendants could easily move or hide their assets while litigation is ongoing - undermining public confidence in the judicial process and potentially encouraging fraudulent behavior by unscrupulous defendants.