Arbitration Is Pending. Can a Connecticut Creditor Attach Assets Before an Award?

September 24, 2026

Winning an arbitration and collecting the resulting award are two different things. While an arbitration is pending, businesses continue operating, bank balances change, receivables are collected, property may be sold or encumbered, and other creditors may obtain liens. Thus, the respondent’s property that may have been available to satisfy an award when the arbitration began may no longer be available by the time the award is entered.

Connecticut law provides an important potential remedy. In appropriate circumstances, a creditor with a pending arbitration may seek a prejudgment remedy (“PJR”) in Connecticut to attach or garnish assets before the arbitrators decide the underlying dispute. The Connecticut Appellate Court’s recent decision in Smith Bros. Financial, LLC v. Belsito, 241 Conn. App. 439 (2026), provides timely guidance on when that strategy may be available.

A Connecticut PJR Can Be Available While Arbitration Is Pending

Connecticut General Statutes § 52-422 authorizes the Superior Court, before an arbitration award is rendered, to issue orders and process that are “necessary” to protect the parties’ rights while arbitration is pending and to secure satisfaction of an award once rendered and confirmed. That statute can operate together with Connecticut’s prejudgment-remedy statutes, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-278a et seq., which authorize remedies including attachment and garnishment. See Smith Bros., 241 Conn. App. 439; Metal Management, Inc. v. Schiavone, 514 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Conn. 2007).

The important point is that seeking a PJR does not necessarily ask the court to decide a dispute that the parties agreed to arbitrate. Instead, the arbitrators continue to determine liability and damages, while the PJR can preserve assets that may ultimately be needed to satisfy the award. As the federal court explained in Metal Management, a PJR can protect the ability to collect without interfering with the arbitral process. 514 F. Supp. 2d at 234–35.

Requirements for a Connecticut PJR in Aid of Arbitration

A creditor seeking a PJR in aid of arbitration faces a two-part analysis. First, under § 52-422, the creditor must establish that judicial intervention is necessary to protect its rights while the arbitration is pending. Second, under § 52-278d, the creditor must establish probable cause that a judgment in the amount sought will ultimately be rendered in its favor, taking into account defenses, counterclaims, and setoffs. See Smith Bros., 241 Conn. App. 439; Savanna Investors, LLC v. Vaughn, No. X08CV084012896S, 2008 WL 4021333 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 30, 2008); Stack v. Hartford Distributors, Inc., No. CV166073691S, 2017 WL 3176028 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 20, 2017).

Those requirements serve different purposes. A strong claim on the merits does not automatically establish that court intervention is necessary, and establishing a need for judicial intervention does not relieve the creditor from proving probable cause as to liability and damages. A creditor considering this strategy therefore needs to evaluate both its underlying evidentiary case and the interim remedies available through the particular arbitration forum.

When Is Court Intervention “Necessary” During Arbitration?

The leading Connecticut Supreme Court decision is New England Pipe Corp. v. Northeast Corridor Foundation, 271 Conn. 329, 857 A.2d 348 (2004). The Court construed “necessary” under § 52-422 narrowly, requiring the applicant to establish that its rights will be lost irretrievably without judicial intervention. That demanding standard reflects Connecticut’s policy favoring arbitration and limiting unnecessary judicial interference with the arbitral process.

For a creditor seeking to preserve assets, one of the most important questions is therefore whether the arbitrators can provide equivalent relief. If the arbitral forum can adequately protect the property or interests at issue, a Connecticut court may conclude that judicial intervention is unnecessary. See Savanna Investors, 2008 WL 4021333; Yankwitt v. Silver, Golub & Teitell, LLP, No. FSTCV145014245S, 2014 WL 7462562 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 19, 2014).

That analysis should be performed before filing the PJR application. Counsel should identify the particular relief needed, such as attachment of real estate or garnishment of a bank account, and determine whether the applicable arbitration agreement and rules actually authorize comparable relief. Yankwitt also cautions that, where the arbitrator may possess authority to grant meaningful interim relief, failing to seek that relief from the arbitrator first can undermine the claim that judicial intervention is necessary.

Smith Bros. and Connecticut PJRs in Aid of Arbitration

Smith Bros. arose from a pending FINRA arbitration in which the claimants sought to preserve assets in Connecticut. The Appellate Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision granting a $1.355 million PJR and an asset-disclosure order. Smith Bros., 241 Conn. App. 439. The court concluded that the necessity requirement was satisfied because the FINRA rules at issue did not authorize the attachment or garnishment the claimants sought.

That distinguishes Smith Bros. from cases such as Savanna Investors, where the applicable AAA rules provided mechanisms for interim protection, and Yankwitt, where the claimant had not first sought available interim relief from the arbitrator. The broader lesson is not that arbitration automatically opens the door to a Connecticut PJR. Rather, the availability of judicial relief can depend significantly on what the particular arbitral forum can and cannot do.

The Creditor Still Must Establish Probable Cause for a PJR

Even where § 52-422 is satisfied, the creditor must establish the ordinary requirements for a Connecticut PJR. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278d, the court must find probable cause that a judgment in the amount sought will be rendered in the creditor’s favor, taking into account defenses, counterclaims, and setoffs. The probable-cause standard is less demanding than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it applies to both liability and the amount of the requested attachment. See TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132, 943 A.2d 406 (2008); Fischel v. TKPK, Ltd., 34 Conn. App. 22, 640 A.2d 125 (1994).

That makes early preparation important. Agreements, guaranties, account histories, payment records, damages calculations, default communications, and evidence addressing anticipated defenses should be assembled before the PJR hearing. Although damages need not be established with mathematical precision, the amount requested must have an adequate evidentiary foundation. See Morris v. Cee Dee, LLC, 90 Conn. App. 403, 877 A.2d 899 (2005); Kendall v. Amster, 108 Conn. App. 319, 948 A.2d 1041 (2008).

Importantly, a creditor seeking an ordinary noticed PJR under § 52-278d does not have to prove that the respondent is already hiding or dissipating assets. Actual or threatened dissipation becomes relevant to the heightened requirements for certain ex parte relief under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278e, but it is not an independent element of the ordinary probable-cause analysis. See Marlin Broadcasting, LLC v. Law Office of Kent Avery, LLC, 101 Conn. App. 638, 922 A.2d 1131 (2007); Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican, 286 Conn. 548, 944 A.2d 329 (2008).

Asset Disclosure Can Help Identify Assets for Attachment

Obtaining authority to attach assets is only useful if the creditor knows what assets exist and where they are located. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278n allows the court, after finding probable cause sufficient for a PJR, to order an appearing defendant to disclose interests in property and debts owing to the defendant sufficient to satisfy the remedy. A motion for disclosure may be filed with the PJR application or afterward.

For commercial creditors, that can materially change the enforcement picture. Instead of attempting to locate assets based solely on information developed before the dispute, the creditor may obtain court-ordered disclosure identifying property potentially available for attachment. In Smith Bros., for example, the court ordered disclosure by sworn affidavit or deposition of property interests and debts owing to the respondent sufficient to satisfy the $1.355 million PJR. Smith Bros., 241 Conn. App. 439; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278n.

Early Attachment May Affect Creditor Priority

Seeking a PJR early is not only about preventing assets from disappearing. A prejudgment attachment can establish a lien position against later claims to the attached property, giving timing potential significance when multiple creditors are pursuing the same debtor. See Mac’s Car City, Inc. v. DiLoreto, 238 Conn. 172, 179–80, 679 A.2d 340 (1996).

That advantage does not eliminate the need for post-award diligence. After an arbitration award is rendered and confirmed as a judgment, the creditor must take the appropriate steps to preserve and perfect its lien rights, including timely filing any required judgment lien. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-417; Mac’s Car City, 238 Conn. 172. For creditors dealing with a financially distressed respondent, both the timing of the original attachment and the steps taken after confirmation can therefore matter.

PJR Waivers in Merchant Cash Advance and Commercial Financing Agreements

Commercial creditors should not assume that a contractual PJR waiver automatically permits Connecticut’s expedited prejudgment-remedy procedure. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278f provides a mechanism for obtaining a PJR without prior notice and hearing in qualifying commercial transactions where the defendant has executed the required written waiver. Current Connecticut law, however, limits the use of those waivers in certain commercial-financing contracts, including certain transactions commonly referred to as merchant cash advances (“MCAs”).

Specifically, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-868 prohibits certain commercial financing contracts, including covered revenue-based financing agreements, entered into on or after July 1, 2024, from containing provisions that waive a recipient’s right to notice, a judicial hearing, or a prior court order under Connecticut’s PJR statutes before a prejudgment remedy may be obtained. Accordingly, MCA funders and other commercial finance providers should analyze the particular transaction and current statutory requirements before relying on contractual PJR-waiver language. If the restriction applies, however, it does not mean that a PJR is unavailable. Rather, it may affect the ability to rely on a waiver-based procedure in covered transactions.

A Practical PJR Checklist for Creditors Facing Arbitration

When a significant commercial claim is headed to arbitration and the respondent has assets in Connecticut, creditors should consider an asset-preservation strategy early rather than waiting for the award. The threshold analysis is relatively focused, but it should be completed before substantial resources are devoted to a PJR proceeding. Among the principal questions are:

• Is an arbitration actually pending? Section 52-422 applies before an award is rendered in a pending arbitration governed by Connecticut’s arbitration statutes.
• What specific assets or remedies need to be preserved? Identify whether the objective is attachment of real estate, garnishment of bank accounts or receivables, or another form of provisional relief.
• Can the arbitral forum provide equivalent protection? Review the arbitration agreement and applicable rules carefully, including any emergency or interim-relief procedures.
• Can the creditor establish probable cause? Evaluate both liability and the amount of damages, including anticipated defenses, counterclaims, and setoffs.
• Would asset disclosure materially assist collection? Consider requesting relief under § 52-278n where the respondent’s asset picture is incomplete.
• Does timing affect priority? Consider competing creditors and other circumstances that may make early attachment materially more valuable than waiting for an award.
• Does the agreement contain a PJR waiver? If so, determine whether the waiver remains enforceable and available under §§ 52-278f and 36a-868.

The Takeaway for Commercial Creditors

An arbitration clause does not necessarily require a Connecticut creditor to wait until an award is entered before addressing collectability. Sections 52-422 and 52-278a et seq. can provide a path to attachment, garnishment, and asset disclosure while the underlying merits remain with the arbitrators. Whether that path is available depends principally on the necessity for judicial intervention, the remedies available in the arbitral forum, and the creditor’s ability to establish probable cause.

The practical point is to consider a collection strategy at the beginning of the arbitration rather than at the end. Where a substantial claim is being arbitrated and the respondent has assets in Connecticut, early action may help preserve those assets before other creditors obtain priority or the respondent’s financial circumstances change. Winning the arbitration matters, but preserving assets to satisfy the award may matter just as much.

About the Author

Lucas B. Rocklin is a Shareholder and Principal with Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C., where he chairs the firm’s Creditors’ Rights Practice Group. He represents banks, commercial lenders, credit unions, equipment finance companies, private lenders, landlords, businesses, and other creditors throughout Connecticut in commercial litigation, prejudgment remedies, arbitration-related asset preservation, post-judgment collection, judgment enforcement, foreclosure, bankruptcy, and other creditors’ rights matters.

For more information regarding Connecticut prejudgment remedies, asset preservation in connection with arbitration, or other creditors’ rights matters, contact:

Lucas B. Rocklin
Shareholder & Principal
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
195 Church Street, 13th Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
Direct: (203) 781-2835
Email: lrocklin@npmlaw.com

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Because every arbitration, prejudgment remedy, and asset-preservation matter presents unique legal and factual issues, readers should consult qualified legal counsel before pursuing any prejudgment remedy or other asset-preservation strategy.

---