in any particular way- Because the Bankruptcy Court was given this considerable latitude in determining how the funds were to be distributed (i.e., the Court was left to determine whether the United States would be permitted to set off debts in accordance with § 553 of the Bankruptcy Code), any such distribution by the Bankruptcy Court was not pursuant to the District Court’s injunction, but rather, was an independent order for disbursement. It follows that any such order to disburse the money would not be injunc-tive in nature.... [T]he Bankruptcy Court’s September 30th disbursement Order is best understood as a money judgment. [App. 9-10.] We agree with the district court that the disbursement order was a money judgment. Cf. Hebert v. Exxon Corp., 953 F.2d. 936, 938 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); In re Miranne, 94 B.R. 413, 415 (E.D.La.)
holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding a claim for money damages is an adequate remedy at law and so it does not provide a sufficient basis for injunctive relief notwithstanding the possibility that a money judgment will be uncollectible holding that declaratory judgment requiring party to pay a specific sum of money is properly characterized as a money judgment recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money holding preference claim legal in nature where relief sought was for a definite sum of money