dec qtr casflows out - and positive, page-20

Hi Yanlin,

A precursor to any injunction being granted would be the need for an undertaking to be given by ATC in the event of its claim for recovery not succeeding. Given the current state of ATC, FNT would either argue for a variation on the security for costs theme, or require the continuing directors to guarantee (ie: back up) the proceedings.

Injunctions are not readily given by the Courts, and especially by those Courts involving matters crossing one or more foreign jurisdictions.

In order to pursue an injunction, one must argue the immediacy of the need (ie: why is an injunction required more urgently than just proceeding with the recovery action). In my estimation, grounds for an injunction do not exist here particularly, as the only basis of complaint is a failure of completion (including possible misleading or deceptive conduct), for which damages (if the claims are proven) will be an adequate remedy.

Simply put, I know of no matters where injunctive relief follows a claim of monetary damages.

Exceptions (primarily, in Equity) relate to matters such as spiriting assets out of reach of the jurisidiction, etc. But, to again stress, this is not what is at issue here. So, the claim (if one is proceeded with) will be one of pure damages (maybe in contract, assuming that the contract was without any Conditions Precedent that had not yet been satisfied, or maybe in tort, assuming negligence, or maybe in statutory relief, assuming misleading or deceptive conduct can be proved).