Below is a link I found to the Victorian Supreme Court summary...

Below is a link I found to the Victorian Supreme Court summary of the Atomos vs McGechie case that they filed immediately after she filed suit in California. Note that this is only a summary of the jurisdiction argument ie. should this loan agreement be tried in Australia or California. The Victorian court jurisdiction stated that the bridging loan is separate to the employment agreement breach which is currently being fought in California.

Atomos vs McGechie

Point 36 Counsel for the defendant contended that the following paragraph of Ms McGechie’s Declaration constitutes evidence pointing toward the Loan Agreement being a variation to the Employment Agreement:
[35] In order to relocate myself and my family from California to Australia, I began to search online for a home to purchase in Melbourne and a suitable school for my child while Melbourne remained in COVID lockdowns. I kept Atomos apprised of my progress on the move.

On March 8, 2022, I signed a contract to purchase a house in Melbourne. I was required to provide a down payment to the seller.

On March 9, 2022, Atomos provided a bridging loan for a down payment as part of my relocation package. Atomos wired the loan directly into the Melbourne home seller’s account.

As a result of the termination of my employment, I was forced to exit the home purchase contract, which resulted in the loss of the majority of the loan deposit— in addition to the loss of significant relocation costs I had already incurred.

Of significant note is that this is evidence she had already purchased a house and that the funds were deposited into the sellers account, not hers. Atomos are suing her for the entire loan repayment but she was forced to forfeit it due to being "concluded". No doubt they've spent more money fighting this than just settling. I can't find any of the documents associated with the summary.