The TRO was vacated on a procedural basis: authority and standing, not a factual finding that the asset‑dissipation risk was fake.

TRO Vacated on Standing—Not Because the Dissipation Risk Disappeared

This order vacates the TRO—not because the underlying custody and dissipation concerns were disproven, but because the court found Peter Schiff had not shown authority to seek injunctive relief on behalf of EPB or the trustee, and EPB itself was not a party. It is a procedural reset: the court signals standing and proper party alignment as the gating issues. In other words, it is a reminder that courts can agree a problem is serious while still requiring the right plaintiff to bring the right claim.