presumed"); Computer Assocs. Int'l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F.Supp.2d 688, 700 (N.D.Ill.2004) (under the Illinois UTSA, "[tJhere is a presumption of irreparable harm to the plaintiff in cases of trade secret misappropriation"); Union Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Tillman, 143 F.Supp.2d 638, 641-42 (N.D.Miss.2000) (under the Mississippi UTSA, "to be awarded an injunction," a plaintiff "need not demonstrate irreparable injury; a violation of the Act itself constitutes irreparable injury"); Tracer Research Corp. v. Nat'l Env't Serv. Co., 843 F.Supp. 568, 582 (D.Ariz.1993) (once a plaintiff has established misappropriation under the Arizona UTSA, "it is presumed that it will suffer irreparable and im-immediate harm"). 15 . See Sys. Concepts, Inc. v. Dixon, 669 P.2d 421, 428 (Utah 1983) (<HOLDING>). 16 , See cases cited supra 14. The dissent
holding that evidence of threatened loss of prospective customers or goodwill supports a finding of irreparable harm holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted holding that if defendants violated substantive or procedural provision of esa a court does not have traditional equitable discretion instead any threatened harm is per se irreparable harm and  public interest always favors the imposition of an injunction holding that  the threat of future harm not yet realized is not enough  holding that a likely or actual threatened harm is sufficient to sustain injunctive relief as it is an anficipatory remedy purposed to prevent the perpetration of a threatened wrong or compel the cessation of a continuing one and concluding that a former employee working for a competitor is enough to infer such future harm internal quotation marks omitted