morning morning welcome to the this circuit in the unusual way we welcome people these days on a farm we have three arguments today and we have say no doubt the best last and the related case what's your response your honor i was actually going to reach such a smell in response to the there's no doubt and i prost got every right to file that paper the eastern caribbean court ruled against our client and affirm the trial court there we have filed our motion for leave to appeal which gets heard by the heard in court appeals itself so they have to give leave to appeal further to the pr council there is a process that if that was denied you can request the privy council to take jurisdiction directly although that's very unlikely we asked our folks in antigua what is the expected timeframe the their expectation is the hearing on our requests for leave to appeal will be heard probably in february and the expectation is that would take them two months or so to rule on that request you know granting leave for further you're not privy to them permission but do you agree that if if this ruling is upheld ultimately that that moots what we're doing today yes on both appeals as a just as a matter of law there's no there's there's no further claim that could be pursued i don't know if pasco has a different view they may decide they want to go back to judge god b and as for fees and costs or happens in the eastern caribbean court the privy council or whatever it's called for our perspective your honor that would be five against the only concern we have is that right now we're sort of operating under the constraint that if we you know step foot in the united states that if we are successful in overturning the decision that somehow stepping foot in the united states even for unrelated activities into whether or not something to the s c c and the chapter fifteen in the broader scope of the insolvency estate has brought coins that we think would not be available after those that there are in fact although there were in fact i don't believe there's a pending law firm claims at the beginning of this long saga there were multiple law firms that have either been sued by  both of us well let me just ask limited to what we're talking about today and the law firm actually standing up in the picture of their release hit its representative there he claims an entity where they would be separate from which being raised against that f unionized changed your order again the relationship was the relationship the relationship between the law firm and the back so any cause of action that was brought in a team that looks different than what it was in the united states would be part would be the vagaries of each jurisdiction apply its own law so for instance in the united states when you sue a law firm you soon tort but in most common law countries you sue both in tort and contract so those are the kinds of differences but there's no doubt that they use were based upon the same relationship however judge i do want to point out that this is par for the course in international insolvency cases this is exactly why we went into the chapter fifteen which is congressional policy to ask for cooperation and coordination we went into the father chapter fifteen but there's a recognition we were granted only not many we took that on appeal and we settled the appeal by doing the cross border protocol and has just got the whole below he cites all the sections from both judges my clients report only to their judge who they were appointed by just as the receiver is his you know his boss is just g jurisdiction of the courts in the united states no your honor be it appears that but the bank had would have had sufficient middle contacts in the c c vs the bank jack correct that's correct your honor and if you think about it it would be the same if it was a chapter seven bankruptcy trustee in the united states where it would domestic law so for instance a chapter seven bankruptcy trustee is not an agent of the debtor it's exactly the opposite the chapter seven trustee does not take direction from the better in this case the argument you have to put a practical view towards this the bank has no employees it has no board of directors it has no president it has no acts slowly through its court appointed representative in the united states of the receiver and everywhere else outside the united states it is the joint liquidators agency regular co notions of agency we all agree have to do with control the principal controls the agents actions the joint liquidators do not take any direction from the receiver the s e c or the back course there's nobody at the bank to give direction it takes no direction from that it takes it's only direction from the n t can core and that's the same for the receiver the receiver will not be an agent of the entity that he was appointed or her he doesn't take direction from the bank he only takes direction you from just bobby who is the appointing court so the word agency in who sixty five is just a bill fit aiding and abetting is also an ill fit because aiding and abetting presupposes that there is somebody else as the primary actor and that the person who is aiding and abetting is a secondary actor were not a secondary actor we are the direct actor we control it but a geisha it's because of this that we're no we are distinct entities it's not to be clear it's not like proscar didn't have an avenue they could try to side with both states like one of the other offers that it could have if it really wanted to it could have filed a form and they sued injunction action which is the book the jurisprudential ave but these things have been done before you go to the judge you file into you file an adversary because we're in the chapter asking for permission to enter into this cross border protocol which contemplated as judge dudley found distinct entities bringing separate actions even against the same defended proskauer objected the judge distinct interest was granted by our court prasco actually file the pieces of paper but which our client was appointed and vested with the assets of the bank therefore we have our own independent interest moreover if you did a traditional international shoe analysis the nd prong of international issue is fair play in substantial justice can't be fair play for us to enter into a cross border protocol that contemplates we're going to bring a separate action by which it says we're distinct and we can bring our own claims against the very same people it cannot be fair play and substantial justice to then say well a few years later we're going to ignore that notion and enter  injunction preventing you from doing the very thing that you said was contemplated and that everybody understood could happen and at least not to do that without notice an opportunity to defend it on the grounds of what's being requested which would have been a students so from our perspective you know no matter which way you read while consume it whether you think it still survives the supreme court basically destroying every other theory of personal protection other than international issue remember justice brennan trying stream of commerce that way that inflames somebody else all those cases we learn from law school henson and shaver those are all that international shoe is now should be the mantra but even if you decided there was some kind of separate not international shoe analysis as per waffen schmidt even waffen schmidt says if you have an independent interest but those apply then because you cannot be held in contempt and you would not be in joint because you have an independent attempts to seek leave to appeal is violating the bar orders and so i would respectfully submit that waiting isn't really a violation because they are it isn't a option here if our position is correct that they're violating in violation of borrowers because pursue me in the appeal continuing to pursue the appeal they've been in violation sense the day we informed him that the bar order was final and that they should proceedings it and take and they are still as they just said a continued proceedings at the time we wrote the letter we did not know whether they had appealed and it was not served on us till afterwards i ask you mr rwanda let's say the case discuss that with with with our client but i think the the force of the bar order would be you know they wouldn't be in continuing violation of it and we are we would see cos they were loud and whether we would see costs here would be another question but but the point is by continuing that when we had the time we asked them to stop and they failed to and we moved for content they feel that we one hadn't been argued yet we were forced to go down to and  statement of claim record of appeal thirteen thousand nine hundred and twenty six their statement of claim is in the record here it's brought up the claimant is stanford international bank ltd and his brother acting by him through the joint liquidators an s i b l is bound by th and a party to the bar order there's no question that it's the same claimant in the same claims what we're dealing with here is the other notice of appeal they argued that our motion our notice of motion we were poly content motion which we father the bankruptcy proceeding that the court should have denied that is moot that's easily dispensed with because the district courts deny it was proper it had denied or contempt motion it didn't need to address whether it was proper for us to put a notice notice on the filing of the deputy gifting proceeding and the important reason i say that is that that appeal of the movement's ruling is a trojan horse what they are trying to do and what they say in their statement of appeal would they go forward and argue in their briefing is a collateral attack on the scope of the bar order and that it obvious from their brief they are prohibited from doing so because before the bar order was entered the district court set a time to object and said that if you fail to object your st ever barred from seeking to direct or collaterally attack it and the joint liquidators knew that they had notice and that they now admit they had notice of the settlement agreement and the proposed bar order prior to its entry and therefore they simply waive the ability to challenge it they have no this and they did not object to it we raised that and that waiver is self executing by the bar order that self and we raised that in connection with her appeal in our in our responsive brief that there was a complete waiver they we also they also argue that we also argue that the joint liquidators weighed any objection a nd waiver the failure to to to oppose our motion below and the court should consider those arguments which were not filed in the arguments that they made on their in their motion to strike were not  even filed on the relevant docket and were not in opposition it also when the court considers what a court considers whether somebody violated an order that also doesn't bring into question the validity of the underlying order so where we left is that the people should be denied because we'll relief they're seeking is there barred from sitting by the bar order and by their failure to to object to the bar order we also move to dismiss the appeal though and that is a very straight forward grounds they won below or contempt motion was denied they're not agreed and the court refused to grant that motion it's black letter law they have no standing to appeal the court declined to force the bar orders for lack of jurisdiction we believe that's in error but they are not asking to remove it or judgment well but as i understand that the judge's ruling has collateral damage full lack of the precise term against the liquidators because the judge basically said there's no claim against your farm and then but then went on the rule on a different in a different fashion correct and that what they're trying to do is not reverse the judgment they don't like the reasoning they're trying to amend the opinion not the judgment of presidential effect thank line that they may claim there is no prejudicial effect there present in the united states they have been present the united states and let me just turn to that issue because as an initial matter they've also they were in this case they've also failed to respond to our appeal and they didn't file in opposition motion and we said in our reply brief on the motion to dismiss we said you know they're free to intervene in that in that in the gendry appeal which we understood the court said we should be prepared to address today and before we even filed opening brief said you know we serve we we serve them with our body brief they have knowledge services and then after they missed the deadline we asked them we said please confirm that you don't intend to file an opposition they wrote a one sentence back confirm and then this court asked us to amend the caption to add them directly as a pelleas as i b m and the joint liquidators and actually gave the joint liquidators another thirty days to respond and they simply ignore that deadline and so what really is it issue here is the personal jurisdiction question that mr grossman discussed and that as a national matter federal district courts have the inherent power to enforce their ready against those who have notice of those orders and by those orders that is plainly the case where the bar orders part of the joint liquidators from bringing suit against proskauer and it should not have conducted a minimum contacts analysis it said it's the knowing violation of the order on notice that brings the content or within the personal jurisdiction of the of the court and i think this is a greenly important principle to protect the authority of the inerrant power district eight years and betters of the joint liquidators if you aid and abet that party that places in violation of a court order with knowledge of that court order that quote places they themselves within the personal jurisdiction of the district court of bill's traditional notices of notions of fair play and substantial justice because it's foreseeable if you violate a federal district court's order knowing of that order it's fair that you could be called into that and be required to respond that and that was error but the other thing is when he applied that minimal contacts analysis the court simply ignored the extensive hesitance that's in the record some of bush he mentioned it as actual decision because what happened is they they brought the cross border protocol they went in with the receiver to the district court in the f c c action not just the bankruptcy court they go to the s e c action and they say we want you to approve our settlement agreement that's what the cross border protocol is ed then the court and they ask for proof about the court only gave them approval of the court only gave them approval after this answer again is no we're not going to you will not your honor was the answer and so they got a protocol which we didn't need to object to or any which we did need to appeal it was a settlement agreement and we got the relief we wanted which was they were not authorized to bring a case against us but they asked for got the courts approval and then right after that they came to the united states and we know this is in the record they came to the united states with a joint liquidators and started rooting around for evidence they want to and this is in their fee application in the filed in the receiver action that they were led around in for and obtained documents and a month later in two thousand and thirteen those they show up in their statement of  what they did is they got approval from the court they say to bring a case or to do whatever is not authorized but they were prohibited from doing it they collect evidence in the united states so asking the district court for permission outside to per judge writing it too is not on this panel and issue about but nonetheless taking it to a foreign country maybe a step that we don't need to take in this case and it and and there has been some rejection of the extension of it as well as questions about its validity in the st place though we can't question that just looking at the fact that sai b is already a party of in this country look at rule sixty five what is your best argument that that makes it a liquidators in a foreign country of that institution that bank smit is using international human way also a minimum context the mere fact that what they are liquidating is in this country to as a priority i mean you have made your aim and i thought in your briefing that there are in the nature of an asian or some other label five and there is jurisdiction and i would you make of this chapter seven trustee analogy or well i think that's incorrect because i think there is a chapter fifteen procedure proceeding and we're not arguing that that in a self gauger stiction general jurisdiction we're arguing that even if you set aside the chapter fifteen proceeding look at all the things that they did to to do all their contacts with the former and on the one hand they're saying outside the us and the court discussion office said you know didn't limit it to the to the u s jurisdiction and said those who violate federal court orders from outside the u s with knowledge of them are within the jurisdiction of the court so we do think that that is still good law and good law in this circuit and others have applied it beyond it but even if you go through a minimum context analysis we think that they that that they lose i would also really challenge the application of the bar order and they're simply barred from doing that they waved it they waved it repeatedly they waited this court by not by not objecting but they also it was self executing they knew of that order and they violated by continuing with the action but they can argue it was ok for them to bring the action and they brought the action but once the judge ordered a bar or incomplete peaceful process our process the world and issuing what was in effect and the junction border applied and whether they had notice of it which they don't contest that was the personal jurisdiction analysis under walking schmidt and under the home a case and there is no need to do more but even if you look beyond that appeal the onion back there if there is personal jurisdiction over a party that is invoking the court's orders trying to get approval of agreement it documents to feed that plane and then framing it in terms of a complaint those are all foreign contacts letter that you file my notes that you don't use the word moot but that was mom media reaction when i read the letter was this moot all of these appeals in our court and tell us again why you feel it doesn't because what the violation of the order is continuing to pursue a claim against prosperity and they are in fact continuing to pursue a claim against prosperity even the filing of notice of appeal it's not just the holding a temp to you know getting a court to hold liable which no court has said there is a proper claim against us it's pursuing that i mean we want to scream please peace we're paying lawyers we're traveling offer i do think that there is absolutely that it's a pretty close to know the chance that there will be a resolution of that because we feel like we got a bar order and it's very important courts can settle cases without these  we've paid and i should say the other way they subject themselves to jurisdictions they got money from our settlement their claimants are sharing in the settlement proceeds of this matter so it's hard to see how it could be resolved without the just simply agreeing to drop their you know their their people which they don't appear to be willing to do one thing on your side that you responded earlier either to mr judge parkhill somebody else is that a potential something further being pursued in just  ng going anywhere close i didn't say that either obviously each side has a certain perhaps more on our side than on their side but i never say no it's certainly far easier in the pen demick world to do   remember there are not two different states there's always been two different states there's a receivership is there and there's an insolvency a state i would ask this court because just got to be recognized as the international committee us chapter fifteen is congressional policy embodying international committee when there are insolvency estates in two different jurisdictions remember this case may not be the last time these kinds of issues come up and it may not be it always depends on whose ox is being who are here right if the a t in court was the issue a bar order barring the receiver to continue to take actions in the united states i would think the receiver would be outraged by that kind of conduct we just always have to remember in these cases of international committee it is in fact the discussion of nations this is why chapter fifteen existed which which came from the trial model law oh bunch of countries have signed on to it to stop these kinds of conflicts i do want to respond to this notion that somehow we waived all of these things what what you are saying is that we were obligated to submit ourselves to the personal jurisdiction of a court to argue about the bar order doesn't apply to a lawsuit that i didn't say just god he said he pre authorized it but he didn't prohibit it was mr obama's words he did prohibit it it was contemplated everybody knew that negotiated mr what other says well you should intervene in the appeal in their appeal well if you want if you're honest look at the actual motions are filed in the motion to dismiss we offered a suggestion that said look we're happy to fil specific jurisdiction moreover what did we do you only thing we did was not do something in a foreign country so i do want to take up the waffen schmidt and the other cases that approve of office but they're after this one hundred sites the so the only person there suggesting the person was the bank so we didn't even abet the bank we control the litigation was a point i made earlier so we didn't aid and abet anybody else we control the litigation and we took our own we didn't act in concert with anybody we made our own decisions under the supervision of our judge and the prevailing notion if you reach a pole a case we don't fit under any of the definitions of what it would be to be