The plaintiffs sought to continue a Rule 45.01 preservation order obtained ex parte preventing certain defendants from dealing with disputed shares in a start‑up internet gaming company.
The defendants argued that the order should be set aside because the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the original order.
The court reviewed the evidentiary record and found that the plaintiffs had materially failed to disclose key facts, including prior pleadings, relevant documents, and the full shareholders agreement, and had presented a misleading narrative regarding their knowledge of share allocations.
The omissions were material and undermined the integrity of the ex parte process.
The court exercised its discretion to dissolve the preservation order rather than continue it.
