On April 6, 2024, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in James Riv. Group Holdings, Ltd. v. Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op. 24162, issuing a preliminary injunction ordering parties to close a purchase transaction, explaining:
A preliminary injunction may be granted in any action where it appears that the defendant threatens or is about to do, or is doing or procuring or suffering to be done, an act in violation of the plaintiff’s rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. To obtain a preliminary injunction, JRGH must establish: (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the prospect of irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld; and (3) a balance of equities tipping in the moving party’s favor.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo between the parties until the merits of the underlying equity action can be resolved. Most preliminary injunctions accomplish this goal by prohibiting the defendant from performing an act that allegedly violates plaintiff’s rights while the action is pending. A so-called mandatory injunction, i.e., one which compels the defendant to perform an affirmative act, creates tension with these concepts in two ways. First, by compelling the defendant to do something, a mandatory injunction may have the tendency to alter rather than maintain the status quo. Second, it often has the effect of granting the plaintiff all or part of the ultimate relief sought in the action, prematurely resolving the merits before they are fully explored.
A mandatory injunction, which is used to compel the performance of an act, is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which is rarely granted and then only under unusual circumstances, but such injunctions do issue under appropriate circumstances. The movant for a mandatory injunction is rightfully held to a higher standard where: (i) an injunction will alter, rather than maintain, the status quo, or (ii) an injunction will provide the movant with substantially all the relief sought and that relief cannot be undone even if the defendant prevails at a trial on the merits.
Accordingly, the test for a mandatory injunction is not whether the status quo is maintained or not, it is the trigger for a higher standard. In the context where a mandatory injunction is sought for a breach of contract case, the meaning of status quo causes confusion. A plaintiff’s view of the status quo is the situation that would prevail if its version of the contract were performed. A defendant’s view of the status quo is its continued failure to perform as the plaintiff desires. To a breach of contract defendant, any injunction requiring performance may seem mandatory. Indeed, this case is illustrative: Fleming wishes to maintain the status quo and delay the closing until JGRH lowers the price (which would also be a change in the status quo), while JGRH moves for a court order directing Fleming to close, maintaining that delay enables Fleming to use this court as an economic weapon (also a change in the status quo). Determining whether the status quo is to be maintained or upset has led to distinctions that are more semantic than substantive. Rather, the court applies the traditional three-part test for a preliminary injunction, but the movant must do more to satisfy it for a mandatory injunction. Therefore, for the reasons stated below this court is compelled to grant JRGH’s motion for a mandatory injunction directing Fleming to close immediately at the contract price set forth in the SPA, without a concession in price, because JRGH has more than satisfied the traditional elements and established the additional requirements for a mandatory injunction: a clear right under the traditional criteria and extraordinary circumstances. There is no breach for Fleming to rely on to delay the closing. This court is well aware of the extraordinary nature of a mandatory injunction, but that does not disqualify such relief.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).