Chairman of ELSI, when he appeared as a witness and was crossexamined, that the cash available at 31 March 1968 ("22 million in the kitty"), would have been insufficient to meet the payroll of the full staff even for the first week of April ("at least 25 million"). The suggestion that ELSI did not meet its March 1968 payroll was not put to the witness; and counsel for the United States later stated that the assertion that "ELSI could not make its March payroll", was "simply wrong". It is in any event certain that when the company ceased activity there were still severance payments due to the dismissed staff; those, the Applicant suggested, would have been covered by funds to be provided by Raytheon (paragraph 28 above). They could not have been met from the money still remaining in ELSI's coffers at the time. 89. Thirdly, the plan as formulated by ELSI's management involved a potential inequality among creditors : unless enough was realized to cover the liabilities fully, the major creditors were to be content with some 50 percent of their claims; but the smaller creditors were still to be paid in full. Whether or not this would have been legally objectionable as a breach of the rule of par condicio creditorum (it appears that Raytheon contemplated accepting a smaller share in the eventual distribution so that the small creditors could receive 100 percent without affecting the share attributed to the banks), it was an additional factor which might have caused a major creditor to hesitate to agree. According to the evidence, when in late March 1968 ELSI started using funds made available by Raytheon to pay off the small creditors in full, "the banks intervened and said that they did not want that to happen as that was showing preference". Once the banks adopted this attitude, the whole orderly liquidation plan was jeopardized, because a purpose of the settlement with small creditors was, according to the 1974diplomatic claim, "to eliminate the risk that a small irresponsible creditor would take precipitous action which would raise formidable obstacles in the way of orderly liquidation". 90. Fourthly, the assets of the company had to be sold with the minimum delay and at the best price obtainable - desiderata which are often in practice irreconcilable. The United States has emphasized the damaging effect of the requisition on attempts to realize the assets; after the requisition it was no longer possible for prospective buyers to view the plant, nor to assure them that if they bought they would obtain immediate possession. It is however not at al1 certain that the company could have counted on unfettered access to its premises and plant, and the opportunity of showing it to buyers without disturbance, even if the requisition had not been made. There has been argument between the Parties on the question whether and to what extent the plant was occupied by employees of ELSI both before and after the requisition; but what is clear is that the company was expecting trouble at the plant when its closure plans became