arguments are set forth in the briefs are but what i'd like to focus on is the respondent appel we went into the court below in a closed case and asked for an injunction act but this order was entered after an application was made for a brief extension of time and showing that there was no prejudice no no the other side didn't claim that there was any prejudice the court refused to grant an extension as long as you agreed not to proceed for the period the extension of the delaware chance record which was that's that's correct your honor which we quote was what was the problem with just the way well that was the same essentially the same relief that they were asking for in the application and so we were being told you're not going to get an extension of time unless you go ahead and agree to everything they're asking for in the application and we had we put forth a letter in the other side put in a response not disputing it that the party isn't even been served and nothing was going to happen in that delaware chancery court action not nonetheless refused to grant the extension of time entered an order that very clearly violates federal prohibited unless it meets certain expects epson's and there's a couple that are addressed in the papers one is the issue of related gating something but that's not what happened here in native jurisdiction all this would happen in a district court and all of a sudden there is a state proceeding in dollar wise and that under that exception because if you look at that exception we addressed this in the papers it's still turns to the issue of whether the viewer really beginning something and this was a separate issue the ownership and control of western capital advisors which is what is the subject of the injunction is not what would what had been addressed in the prior revestive order in the district court does have a history and the history is successive contempt orders of increasing severity against your client then there's the initiation of the delaware so why should we hear you now because what's also in the record is is that this was is clearly on reasonable when a new counsel comes in in a multi district case that was closed it was years old basically gauged in various techniques to be the judgment of the district court the latest of which was you know getting a new attorney wasn't prepared to respond that's why the was perceived in the views of your adversaries to try to help run around the district court judgment by going to another court that may be true but but it doesn't change the fact that there was a showing in the district court it's on the record it's not disputed that there was no prejudice by giving a very brief extension of time to have an opportunity to respond to the substance of the merits or it was a letter came in saying there's a three week extension there's no prejudice because nothing's going to happen in delaware there is a response this is all in the record there is a response from the respondent epperly which does not dispute that there is no prejudice whatsoever and not only is there no extension but we're told you can only have the extension if you agreed to give them the under ultimate what's essentially the ultimate relief that they're seeking and so i appreciate everything that your honor saying but in terms of the review of  district court's decision the reason that there wasn't a substantive response filed was because there wasn't a reasonable opportunity to do so and that there were and again there was no prejudice from the other s  i don't know that mr harris was familiar with all of the history of the southern district action which there which he was not representing the petitioner appellant at that time and there were different issues that were living it in this closed case in the southern district of new york then what was filed in the in the delaware action to determine ownership and control of the western entities many of of the things and this in the record of our five pages of the petition and don't describe what happened in this district i mean there's a difference between having been in the case and being fully familiar with the issues that came up in the southern district action versus act without informing yourself of whatever you needed to for the anticipated defense the action that was going you you wouldn't say to your there's a difference i would respectfully you are between rather quickly and filing in order to show caus a closed case without even reopening it and then seeking a substantive response before there's any opportunity for counsel respond to what they didn't even have counsel in new york when when that was  good morning daniel kaufman from quite a manual or card solvent on behalf of bag which may please the court this court should affirm because the district court had the discretion to enjoin these recalcitrant contenders from violating prior orders that this co that conclusion is not changed by the fact that the act that wasn't joined was the prosecution of a state court action the injunction act does not prevent district courts from issuing orders history here but there was a key event that you left out which was that the district court conveyed the equity interest in all of these entities to bank and the reason it did that was to put a stop to this endless global litigation and harassment campaign that mr ligi and wesson's former management have waged against bang for the better part of the last decade and this court affirmed all that's going on here is more of the same from weston's former management mr levy bought these entities for a dollar he got a huge payday relent and effectively will pay him to go away but that's not going to happen because the district court put a stop to that with the revestive orders and this court affirmed all that was sought with the injunction was to give effect to the revestive orders and not permit wesson's for management to do an end run around them effectively what they've done is they've sought to appeal this court's a firm and the arresting orders to the chancery corn in delaware and they don't get to do that that's not permissible and so all we saw at all the district court did in all we asked this court to affirm is to not permit them to prosecute and the same issue to litigate the same issue in delaware or anywhere else just ask you what's the status of litigation and more issues so there are i thought there were some orders we entered against your client no reason fairly recently is not true so it's it's not it is true and it's not true and i'll explain what i mean by that and the chronology here is important so prior to the final resting order the district court entered an order in joining the western enemies then still own by mr levy to bring the share certificates to the southern district and the date that was done was required to do that was march th of two thousand and seventeen on that very day weston ran into the courts and this and filed this notice of attachment but what westons former management has argued is that it attached the equity interests in all of the other assets that were the subject of the requesting orders now as i said that argument was rejected this  what led to this order that they now rely on as this kind of figley for defying the district courts in this court orders they're relying on on an order of the court in more issues that's right judge and point is that it is another example of this kind of slippery approach to litigating this case which is to every time this court puts an end to this conduct then they quieter action which as i understand it is designed to give enforcement to the orders coming from this court and we expect that in due course the courts and rishis will give recognition to this court you did not reserve any time but i know i'll give you thirty seconds if you want to deal with these large questions if the if the panel wasn't it questions have been answered otherwise the rest of our papers thanks very much