14 The first plea in law raised by the appellant is that, in relying on the fact that the appellant had failed to show that one of its three shareholders was 'prevented' from offering it assistance, the President of the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the condition relating to urgency and wrongly concluded that a risk of serious and irreparable damage had not been established.
14 En su primer motivo, la recurrente indica que, basándose en el hecho de que dicha parte no había demostrado que uno de sus tres accionistas fuera «incapaz» de ayudarla, el Presidente del Tribunal de Primera Instancia interpretó de forma incorrecta el requisito relativo a la urgencia y concluyó de forma equivocada que no se había probado que existiera el riesgo de un daño grave e irreparable.