<s>[INST] Case summary and issue:
The Devonian debtors brought suit in state court in Pennsylvania against its lenders on the ground that the contract arranging a $71 million debt refinancing deal threatening Devonian with bankruptcy proceedings did not contain the stock purchase warrant required by the Loan Agreement. The district court was of the opinion that, as debtors, Devonian had shown enough equivocality that would never admit to irreparable material harm, and hence the district court granted a preliminary injunction. The 3rd Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, also by basing the determination of “triable issues of material fact,” however, did not provide a legal framework for the conclusion that the preliminary injunction is indeed in the form of equity. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the matter, saying that equitable relief is only justified in cases where there is some likelihood of success on the merits. This transforms the equitable criteria to be palpable. In the absence of a likelihood of success on the merits, lower courts tend to err by granting rather than denying that preliminary injunctions have overstepped their boundaries.
So, what is the question being asked in this case and what issues should the court decide upon in order to solve the question of whether the injunctive relief requested by the debtors is equitable or not?[/INST]