Plaintiffs' argument in their response brief rests on the claim that courts have granted the type of relief that Plaintiffs seek. See id. at 17 (citing Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Hood Med. Servs., Inc., No. 05-CV-794, 2005 WL 2230232, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 13, 2005)). But Plaintiffs mischaracterize the holding of that case.
See Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Beads Corp., 983 F. Supp. 437, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("[A]bsent enforcement of the . . . collateral security clause, plaintiff could . . . be relegated to an unsecured claim and therefore be forced to share its debtor's property with other creditors."); see also Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Solutions to Every Problem, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-37, 2012 WL 2576775, at *7 (E.D. Tenn. July 3, 2012) (unpublished) ("[C]ourts have routinely found that sureties suffer immediate, irreparable harm if they are denied receipt of collateral after liability has been asserted against them." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Hood Med. Servs., Inc., No. 2:05-CV-794, 2005 WL 2230232, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 13, 2005) (unpublished). As the Indemnitors point out, some courts have held that a violation of a collateral-security provision does not necessarily result in irreparable harm.
To the extent Nature's Pearl's argument is based on a perceived practical difficulty in effectuating the replevin of accounts receivable due to the property's alleged intangible quality, (see Doc. 85 at 11-12), that argument creates a difficulty where none exists. See, e.g., Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Hood Med. Servs., Inc., No. 2:05-CV-794, 2005 WL 2230232, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 13, 2005) (order of Frost, M.J.) (instructing parties on how to carry out an order for claim and delivery of accounts receivable). Nature's Pearl also maintains that some of the equipment in PNC's affidavit constitutes fixtures and is not recoverable under claim and delivery and that Nature's Pearl does not own other listed equipment.