Hawkins and Costello claimed the accounts were frozen but never provided any proof to the plaintiffs. The first episode of non payment occurred November 30. If that was because of a freeze, why did Hawkins claim verbally on 12/30, and in writing on 1/15, that the payment had been made? Why didn't he just say "we can't, the funds are frozen?"
Hawkins claimed that a delayed March payroll payment "might" be processed the next week. With frozen funds?
If it had been proven to plaintiffs that a freeze was in place they wouldn't sue to prevent diversion of funds because diversion of funds would not be possible, right? Nor would the judge grant a TRO and injunction against diversion of funds.
If you believe the funds are frozen, then you have to believe that Hawkins and Costello hid the fact from the plaintiffs and the judge.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
