As confirmed to Klix.ba, the request to the court was submitted by the Vice President of Operations of the international company Regulus, Akos (Ike) Horvath, who holds a 25 percent ownership stake in the company "Binas." Regulus purchased the shares through the shareholder company SIKTO d.o.o., which is the plaintiff in this case. In a statement to Klix.ba regarding whether he was dismissed due to political decisions or party and pre-election programs, Mandžuka previously stated that until the official explanation from the Government of the Federation is provided, he does not wish to comment on such claims. "I did not perceive it that way, so I would not comment on it. The Government of the Federation and the Prime Minister have still not given me an explanation as to why I was dismissed, so I cannot comment on that either," said Mandžuka. As stated in the Court's decision, the temporary security measure has been submitted to the Securities Commission for registration against the opposing party and remains in effect until the court issues a further decision on the security measure. The plaintiff SIKTO d.o.o. claims that the decisions of the Assembly are unlawful and that their aim represents an attempt to replace the company's director, which could lead to serious consequences for the regular operations of Binas. "The plaintiff emphasizes that the Assembly was unlawfully convened and that the likelihood of the temporary measure is also reflected in irregularities in the voting on the dismissal and appointment of members of the supervisory board. As a consequence of such violations and actions, the manner and legality of the existence and operations of the company Binas d.d. have been called into question. Therefore, it believes it is necessary to halt the registration of the decisions because they will contribute to unforeseeable harmful consequences, and it proposes the adoption of a temporary measure and a security measure in this legal matter," states the decision. The court assessed that the plaintiff was threatened with irreparable harm and that it was urgently necessary to prevent the implementation of the disputed act. The court emphasized that the temporary measure was issued ex parte, without prior notification and hearing of the opposing party, because the applicant made it probable that the measure was well-founded and urgent, and that otherwise, the purpose of the security would be lost. An appeal against this temporary measure is not permitted, but the opposing party, Binas d.d. Bugojno, may challenge the reasons for determining the measure within three days in its response, after which the court will schedule a hearing within the next three days and decide on further proceedings.