today about this matter i'd like to spend most of my time talking about four words and those four words of course were the ruling that the u s bankruptcy court made the substantive motion that has brought us here today in had a claim against certain individuals for fraud and embezzlement instituted that a geisha in state court massachusetts and that matter  proceeded for almost eighteen months clued in sick dangerous discovery hooting depositions including deposition where one of the debtors took the fifth when that matter was pressed further for trial the debtors sought bankruptcy relief knowing that it was both efficient and necessary to pursue their claim in the bankruptcy court palin filed a motion asking for relief from stay and asking that the deadline for pursuing complaints determine the discharge believed dead and or section five point three a be extended in particular i think very important the relief requested included the following prayer movement requests that michigan's continued prosecution of that claim in the barnstaple civil action b team sufficient to satisfy the deadline established here in for commencement of an adversary proceeding for challenge to discharge ability of any dead so established response the bankruptcy court tight on the margin of the pleading for workers relief from say granted s issues i'd like to address relating to those four words first we need to look at what was the ruling what was the substance what did the judge mean by those fo i believe as we've argued our brief and we've argued below that the court was granting the relief requested it pellant of course wants to slice that very thinly and suggest that somehow in typing those four words the court was granting some of the relief but not other the relief requested in the motion but that makes no sense as a relates to what was requested and what bankruptcy law provides if in fact that interpretation is correct and of course i don't want to ignore the fact that four months later the bankruptcy court did interpret those  words in a mare adverse to my client yes and that seems to me that that's an obstacle that you're really going to have to deal with i would like to suggest something and perhaps you could tell me where i'm wrong so that you can get back to your the four words i find it very hard to accept that those or words would be read by any reasonable person by all reasonable persons them put it that way to have to have provided full relief it seems to me that they that that the words are at least in big us with reese in that sense if they're not clear the other way and if that's the case if we were to see them as ambiguous at best we're nearly in here's my question wouldn't we in fact i think we would but wouldn't we send this back to the bankruptcy judge for clarification about what he meant i think we have cases that say that  that if we interpret it at the time it was rolled the way the judge four months later say what he meant it would have been used to sacto been futile because he was giving my client the right to go pursue li which was going to become moot within three or four weeks that makes no sense a scene and that's not what was requested but it gets your your question role fifty two is incorporated by bankruptcy rule seventy fifty two says pretty clearly that the bankruptcy judge is required to ensure a separate statement of funds affection conclusions the law the court failed to do that in the situation that if this went back if the court had done that at that time my client timely would have understood that the court wasn't rolling the relief that it requested and that my client believed and i think very reason to believe had been granted keep in mind the debtor in this case never opposed the requested relief and i ask a question they're looking for the four words were issued on the order the same bankruptcy judge had denied the expedited motion and in the bankruptcy courts decision the bankruptcy judge made clear any extension of the five twenty three deadline had to be by separate motions so in other words denying the expedited request before alternately granting it with the forward order the judge puts your client on notice five twenty three extension has to be done by a separate motion i understand clearly the toughest fact for me in this case but two weeks later the judge granted our motion now my total say didn't grant the motion granted relief from the stay what does that mean in this context with this relief that being request but the second circuit has said very clearly that rule fifty two is incorporated by rule seventy fifty two and ninety fourteen and it does apply for motions really and the point though is if we were advised of the ruling we would have acted appropriately and there's plenty of evidence in the record to show that when there was knowledge of a deadline something had happened we filed pleadings and we made requests and was only it isn't just a pretty clear here is that they when they read relief from state granted they just assumed that it must have been not just the state but the related relief that they'd already asked for and even though it doesn't say that so they thought they were protected except for the fact that the court issued a separate were saying do this by this take if you need more time i'll get it to you they missed the deadline despite his ignore them at their peril misaki and was obligated to comply with them in order to exercise his rights in the collective to do so well that that certainly all correct but then what do you do let's let's assume they did goof  no authority under grew four thousand but again going back he did miss the deadline and that's all this case is about  if you decided this is an opportunity belief of first work to rule on this where that hasn't been ruled out but if you follow the logic it's rather it's almost like a mathematical equation when you move from f zero one to nine hundred fourteen to seven hundred fifty two into fifty two there was this requirement and when you think through if we had gotten a reported opinion we would have understood the ruling we would have acted promptly the record is full of examples of where we did act when we understood there were things to do and if we done that it's rather crystal clear that we would have filed the necessary papers and i want to close by thinking about the policy here the policy is to give broad discharge but not all debtors and not all debts congress has made it clear that there are certain obligations that should survive the discharge things like taxes on student loans but also discharges are for on and show this obligation was one that fits very squarely in that and it doesn't frustrate bankruptcy policy in fact it promotes bankruptcy policy and usual a lot of times in bankruptcy cases where prevents relief being given this case is still one where justice can be done relief can be given thanks very much