In the case of Wayne Safety Inc. v. Gendelman dated April 5, 2023, the plaintiff, Wayne Safety Inc., had sought relief against the defendant, Diana Gendelman, following allegations of substantial and ongoing fraud. Gendelman, a long-term employee, had purportedly misappropriated over $5.2 million from Wayne Safety, importing and distributing industrial protective equipment, and had funneled the funds into various properties owned by her and her husband, Natan Gendelman. This fraudulent scheme had involved altering supplier information in Wayne Safety's accounting records, followed by electronic fund transfers to entities owned by Gendelman. Evidence had demonstrated a prima facie case of Gendelman's fraud, backed by altered records, suspicious bank transfers, and involvement of her own companies. To secure the evidence and prevent dissipation of assets, the plaintiff had sought Mareva, Anton Piller, and Norwich relief. The court had found that the plaintiff's case had been strong and that there had been a serious risk of assets being removed or concealed. Mareva relief, an interlocutory injunction, had been granted due to the strength of the plaintiff's case and the risk of asset dissipation. Norwich relief had also been deemed appropriate, considering the need to preserve evidence and establish the extent of the wrongdoing. The court had concluded that Anton Piller relief had been warranted due to the risk of destruction or concealment of evidence, and it had been noted that a supervising solicitor had been appointed to oversee the execution of the order.