I was just talking general legal principles. If Whetstone is...

I was just talking general legal principles. If Whetstone is refusing to release the machine on the basis of a lien ie that Whetstone says YOW owes them damages so are retaining the machine to meet that debt then my understanding is that in an interlocutory proceeding, to assess whether Whetstone can retain the machine pending the decision on the substance of the case, the court needs to assess what order would cause the least potential detriment to the parties.

The detriment to YOW would potentially be huge, reducing its production capacity by half and all the knock on effects to it ramping up their business. The potential detriment to Whetstone if they ordered the machine released - basically nothing. The only potential damage would be if YOW could not pay any judgment that was ordered and they had handed over an asset that could have covered some of that debt. However, even that could be mitigated by YOW depositing a bond to the value of the wrapping machine.

But I have no idea if YOW did pay some sort of bond relating to release of the wrapping machine.