The judge is not going to consider JO's bancruptcy any point of emphasis on whether to uphold an injunction. It had to be based on fact of argument prudent to the injunction (ie. Mesa can't perform as per the contract. Delta says it is Mesa's fault, Mesa says it's Delta's fault). Other business dealings or the hint of bancruptcy would not be a relevant fact for an injunction hearing.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I think that this point would not be given as much weight in an injunction hearing as has been passed around. That's not the judges role at that point. That issue would be more prudent in a trial for breech of contract.