sought, but was denied, a new restraining order prohibiting the advancement of attorneys' fees. 5 . The Articles themselves do not condition indemnification upon an ultimate finding of guilt or innocence; instead, they extend indemnity in cases where the officer or director who acted in good faith and in a manner he reasonably believed to be in accordance with or not opposed to the corporation’s interests. Neither party has argued, however, that Lake will be entitled to indemnity if he is ultimately convicted. 6 . This eliminates the need to determine whether the heightened Carson showing is necessary when an interlocutory order has the practical effect of granting, rather than denying, a preliminary injunction. See Saudi Basic Indus. v. Exxon Corp., 364 F.3d 106, 111 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Since the injunction is mandatory, there
holding carson inapplicable where an order had the practical effect of granting an injunction holding that because a violation of a statute had no practical effect there was no concrete injury holding that when dismissal of an appeal will have the practical effect of denying later review of a district courts order appellate jurisdiction under  1291 may be appropriate holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order