of Trade Risk Guaranty, Inc., the company that issues ICP its customs bonds. See Conf. R. Annex A, Exs. 3, 4. While these affidavits are not relevant to the instant motion, they may be relevant to the underlying action. 11 Plaintiff makes several other arguments concerning injury it claims will be suffered, in the absence of an injunction, by (1) a related company’s manufacturing plant, see Raybuck Decl. ¶ .1 at 1, and (2) an unrelated purchaser of its merchandise, see id. ¶ 26 at 10. Because neither of these corporate entities is a party to this action, these arguments cannot be heard as proof of the irreparable harm facing ICP. See Heartland By-Products, Inc. v. United States, 23 CIT 754, 760, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1331 (1999), rev’d on other grounds, 264 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). 12 ICP claims that Just on the entries of
holding that a party cannot demonstrate the presence or absence of irreparable harm based on the potential financial abilities of a nonparty holding potential damage to reputation to constitute irreparable harm holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm holding that a movant for a preliminary injunction must first demonstrate that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief