Receiver Supersedeas

A strong receiver has a lot of influence (see, right). But that general principle does not automatically allow an affected party to supersede an order appointing a receiver, as illustrated by Mexico Foods Holdings, LLC v. Nafal:

At the supersedeas hearing, MFH argued that the receiver is “taking over our billion dollar company.” That is incorrect. The receiver is controlling a minority interest in MFH. MFH did not present any evidence that it will not be able to continue to operate its business during the receivership or that it would otherwise be harmed if it is not allowed to suspend enforcement of the order. In the absence of any evidence that refusal to allow MFH to supersede the order would cause it harm, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying MFH’s request to set a supersedeas bond.

No. 05-23-00108-CV (May 9, 2023) (mem. op., on motion to review supersedeas order).