a judgment and Mann Technologies had no apparent business use for these assets, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that the balance of hardships favors Ellipso because Ellipso may be irreparably harmed without an injunction freezing those assets while Mann Technologies would not be irreparably harmed. III. Had Mann Tech been able to prevail on its argument that Ellipso affirmed the loan agreement, it would have been in a position to launch a persuasive challenge to the power of the district court to freeze its assets. An injunction freezing assets is only permissible when a party has demonstrated an equitable claim to the assets. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 332-33, 119 S.Ct. 1961, 144 L.Ed.2d 319 (1999) (<HOLDING>); cf. Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311
holding that a court may not enter an injunction freezing assets in action for damages where there is no equitable interest in frozen assets holding that a limited partner does not have an interest right or title in the assets of the partnership recognizing that an order granting discovery may be a final appealable order where the sole object of a postjudgment proceeding is discovery of the judgment debtors assets and the assets discovered may then be levied without a court order holding that the receiver of assets not the subsequent purchaser of the assets retained all liabilities not specifically enumerated in a similar purchase and assumption agreement holding that insurance premiums deducted from employees paychecks and commingled with corporate assets were plan assets in accordance with department of labor regulations see 29 cfr  25103102a and therefore that president of employer corporation acted as a fiduciary when he failed to separate those assets for payment to the funds and instead used them to pay company creditors