produce documents and refused to comply with a subpoena duces tecum requesting the production of documents. The trial court further found that Emeritus had violated pre-trial discovery rules and that the offenses were largely the fault of Emeritus and not defense counsel. Although the record contained no direct evidence that Emeritus had dissipated or transferred assets, given the information that was before the trial court, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that a likelihood existed that Emeritus would dissipate or transfer its assets to avoid satisfaction of the judgment. Conclusion Emeritus’s motion to dissolve the post-judgment injunction is denied. 1 . See Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 604, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974) (<HOLDING>); In re L.A.M. & Assocs., 975 S.W.2d 80, 84
recognizing need to balance interests of debt or and creditor in determining nature of protection to be afforded creditor holding that creditor did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing where the debtor informed creditor of the possibility that a bankruptcy case would be filed recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order holding jurisdiction over creditor disputes only involves property of estate or resolution affects some other creditor holding that when a creditor is oversecured solvency is not required for the creditor to be entitled to postpetition interest and fees and granting contractual default interest to the oversecured creditor of approximately 24