IANAL but have anecdotally been involved in similar law to this case where I was told:

Courts don't issue injunctions routinely "just to freeze things and be fair till the case plays out"; courts issue injunctions when the court considers that the party who seeks the injunction has a good claim and has every expectation of prevailing.

so by that measure, the judge freezing the assets means Citi has a good chance of getting its money back.

(also, I looked up Kelly v Solari on wikipedia and the case was from 1841. I don't think English Common Law from after US independence would apply)