question i have as i understand the link the procedural morass of this matter bankruptcy court held a hearing it held at our feet the district court the order required that there was no bona fide dispute and therefore you had standing then it went on appeal after it held a merits hearing it went on appeal back to the district court in that if your court held that our the order was invalid the district court fee order i'm sorry judge ferguson feel order was invalid because of our court's opinion ruling the preorder invalid am i correct you are your honor and that's a very good point and it's something that has occupied a tremendous amount of discussion and time on our part to come to what we thought was the correct  and to be candid with the court i think that the other side has good points to it i think we have good points to it i think that ultimately whatever this court would rule on that this issue it's sort of a classic conundrum and i'm not sure there any satisfying opinion or or result that can come from wrangling with that that issue is extremely as you i think started out this is this case is a procedural complicated morass and and that order is sort of in the heart problem it's a simple problem has a simple solution let me see walk continue to procedural story that judge barksdale began which is there was a motion for summary judgment on the three a three b point is there a bona fide dispute or not you all entered into a stipulation i think is very important at record page seven hundred thirty two that we're going to narrow the three o three b question two up or down on the field or is the fear order reclusive or not know not paying guess who can do whatever whatever and so here we are so your point as i understand it is if we were to judge lindsay having disagreed on the fee were her point summary judgment on three of three being we still have the sort of other arguments and not reliant on the fee word or that baron has never really had a legitimate does here and that thing from both sides hasn't been fully litigated anywhere is that your point that cuts in his favor instill some degree to we can't go in the record and go well he didn't contest the fee order back when it was an hour and we can't we focus on that summary judgment proceeding which was narrowed to one issue there being other issues i e does he have counterclaims does you know was the amount in dispute and all of that really wasn't litigated before judge adjourned a guinness this go around and that's what you're saying should happen things this document if i were to write it today knowing ahead of this circuit argument in thirty minutes i would have written it exactly the way we wrote it the focus of this trial that stipulation is very very specific it says as you say up or down  says the sole issue that's being determined on summary judgment is the issue of whether the district court order has continuing validity or not and whether that forecloses the issue of bona fide students the words that are huge and th at is the sole issue so meaning only sole meaning exclusive so meaning that there was nothing else that was tried with respect to that summary judgment there's no full record there's only one issue that's being decided on standing and that is the issue of is this district court order enough to do thing or another then more importantly or perhaps as importantly as that first paragraph of the stipulation is the second paragraph of which says that in the event that it's not value or the johnson versus georgia highway factors or anything else right that's exact so you're in visioning a world in which you go back to judge jernigan and all that is on the table that's correct because we you know anytime you as it turns out according to judge lindsay we are wrong now tell you judge o'connor one of the other federal district has said that that order does continue in a different proceeding and that's in the record but it wouldn't context so i think that is very simple appellate and stay which is when you have a loss on a summary judgment rather than the say oh the summary judgment wasn't enough he sent it back to have a trial but instead what he did was he essentially rendered a dismiss l in a case where judge lindsay was essentially making the initial finding of fact which the richard do and the the worst part of that was that he was making that initial finding fact based on an incomplete record and it's an incomplete record by definition because we set the rules of the game in the stipulation we said the sole issue that we're going to resolve is this summary judgment ochs how you this on this case could benefit from something other than y issue that we see we did a stipulation where we basically limited our issues we reserved our rights to make further arguments in the event that issue wasn't enough both sides where we we all reserved our rights and in the event that this summary judgment was not granted we reserved our right to raise further factual issues in a subsequent summary judgment and they judgment if we had lost there's no question in my mind that would not have been game over we lose summary judgment and therefore there is the case is does if we had lost summary judgment in front of judge jury and she would have come out with a ruling and she would have said sorry petitioning creditors you lose on summary judgment now let's go have a trial and wait and judge lindsay could have done no better as a district judge on appeal when he reversed that summary judgment he essentially said that my judgments no good you got to go back to trial not you lose on summary judgment game over which wouldn't have happened if we had lost in front of judge jernigan it would have been you lose on summary judgment not game over but let's go have a trial and  that isn't clear enough under the wall we made it clear with stipulating in precisely finding what the rules of the game were and argument your honor says that the rules the game were not followed by judge lindsey and again i don't say that disparagingly i think that this is a highly complicated case and i think he was focusing on a lot of the complex issue and i think this just really just so escaped him and so what we told him we didn't and that's a good question and the reason that we did not do that is we were concerned that because of judge lindsay's rulings throughout the barren matter where he appeared to be doing everything he could wrest the court away from all barren matters  been somebody didn't read the email and we spent mr ponsonby spent and wasted six months trying to get an order for relief based upon an order as to which the district court but that may be true i don't know that that that matters now can me that question as it appears that everybody agrees or at least in willing to can cast the judge lindsey was correct that the three were isn't as that need to go back to judge jernigan to be decided you can show your counterpoint you can say these guys overbuild you can say whatever it is you have to say but isn't that like you said you lose a summary judgement you're going to try you don't get a win you're the movement you talked about related only to the summary judgment on its face it's based only on the summary judge there was a response to that motion to  in effect were crossed motions that were considered by the court on the issue of whether or not there was a bona fide dispute as to a mail and asked a lot of billing and when the court got done considering the summary judgment motions and the motion to dismiss the court denied the motion granted the summary judgment on the very same day march to five two thousand and thirteen so these issues were all in front of the court not just the issue of whether the preview of whether the order was pretty close and all of the issues that were raised in the motion to dismiss were before the court and there were issues that were raised in the motion to dismiss that went well beyond whether or not the order was pretty close and those issues included but we're not limited to the ones that i'm going to discuss with the court today the issue of whether or not the involuntary bankruptcy could've been filed in violation of a district court injunction in a receivership that was not within one hundred twenty days of the filing of the bankruptcy this was a receivership that was in existence for two years at the time well seasoned receivership and there was an injunction and mr prosecutor and his clients went forward and violated in essence this court's opinion and later it's mandated by filing an involuntary petition and at the date and time of the filing of the involuntary petition that injunction was still in effect resort should have been made to the district court or relief from that junction and the cases that are cited by mr prince keep relating to that particular issue all deal with receiver ships of recent import in other words receiver ships that will within this one hundred twenty day period that's referenced in three zero three age three zero three age in essence provides that if you file a bankruptcy within one hundred twenty days of a receivership your insolvency issue is determined you are insolvent not so with receiver ships that are outside the one hundred twenty day period now ponsonby filed with the district court he never advised the district court that the district court should remain in this case in the event that reverses no he also did not a motion for rehearing while the district court had played every jurisdiction instead he let the fifteen day period expire under bankruptcy will eight zero one five his notice of appeal and took away from judge lindsey the opportunity to consider whether or not to remain and took away from us the opportunity to argue and develop the case i don't know how he wants to go back there you want school tried again i don't understand your point that they didn't specifically ask for and there's been a if there's been a summary judgment and you get it reversed and of course it goes back to whatever your court opinion i don't see reference to your motion to dismiss and in fact the court says well the court is there appeal and then the intervene or its appeal doesn't mention the motion to dismiss bakley and that's the whole point your honor because the and just because judge lindsay did not consider it in his opinion under this a pit and this under this court's recent opinion and greenhill that doesn't foreclose us from raising that on appeal that's very correct and i quickly went back to your brief and i don't really see you pressing that point in your brief i can certainly be wrong i see where you reference filing a motion it is math you have the wrong you know you file that you have the wrong your list department that's immaterial but i don't see you that and i want to get to this before my time on how much time i have left but there is one point here that i just want to make sure that the people fully aware under three zero three age this is what the bankruptcy court will under three of which she said and i quote but the final question in this court mind is whether this should all be analyzed differently since mr behrens assets have been tied up in a receivership for almost three years and she goes on to say baron has has a persuasive a persuasive argument the court does not believe that mr barron has a persuasive argument in this regard the evidence reflected that there was more than enough down to you from the assets in the receivership pay the legal fees if mr barron had wanted to pay the fees and seize the receivership at any tome in other words she's admitting that there was sufficient assets to pay the debt so insolvency test could never have met then mitt but then she makes the incredible statement that we could have dismissed this receivership and pay the debts how could we have dismissed this receivership and paid the debt we did have the right to dismiss this receivership at all we tried to get the receivership dismissed out i'll give you that every week every week and we could and she's at and so we did not have the ability to pay these debts in fact we were enjoying from paying these debts on december eighteenth two thousand and twelve we were  this isn't relevant to the appeal would throw into the case is it your client's position that none of these the bills and all are valid and they guess that any of these lawyers have done my client's position is that with respect to the feed bills that or being asserted by the petitioning creditors that those claims are in large part meretricious in nature and that there are counter claims that are to be am and i want to just point out to you that or to prepare i mean your theory the world as i guess of the bankruptcy gets dismissed what happens next i mean these lawyers are going away they think they are they think they're entire their fees you all think they're not what happens next in your world gate question of whether or not they're entitled to their fees and say report ok so they have to file a lawsuit they've already done that these these these cases are all teed up mr punch is already going to judgment we've supersede how they could think that they would get any more money out of a bankruptcy because it might have some and might have some money still not receivership starr i don't know and i can't do anything about that but i'm not going to challenge why they felt involuntary bankruptcy was better than state court i guess they're just trying to get paid your honor this court told them to go back to state court and litigate their claims in state court on the separate team two thousand and twelve they did not do that well in our court folic clarification opinion and said all orders that were in place remain in effect so if anything we say it's a it's a torturous trail it's a torturous trail your honor but there's one there's one thing that is certain the court did not have jury right who would have arguing that they are they're not present that point here they're just saying we lost on summary judgment we have a right now to go to trial to prove there is no i'm suggesting to you that there is no there is a bona fide dispute as to amount and judge lindsey in his opinion addressed that there is a bona fide dispute as to amount at this court one of the stipulation how can he dispute that they haven't had a chance to put on their part their own or there were other issues that lindsey could have addressed in his opinion and he chose to limit his review to the they still want to come put on their time records in their contracts and whatever and then you've got to do more than just say these are meretricious whatever that means here and we have counter claims you're going to have to come forward some kind of evidence  d deal with that or judge jernigan well maybe it'll make its way back to us you honor there are other issues that are a matter of law issues that were raised in the motion to dismiss braised them in our brief in our briefing to the district court the district court shows to limit its decision to the fee or that does not foreclose our right to come before this honorable court and raise law issues well i haven't seen you really adequately briefing them saying based on our motion to dismiss of a matter of long that should happen these briefs are frankly a very difficult call your honor take a look at our i don't see much briefing there on or the issue does not require a great deal of briefing the issue was whether or not we had the ability to pay the debts as they became due maybe even before the receivership i agree that while all of the assets and i remember this thing about mr barron being in his apartment with no electricity and always stuff i agree during that period he can't pay his debts but there there is something that precipitated back how we got to the receivership in the first place was he wasn't paying his debts and it just got worse after the receivership because apparently kept hiring lawyers or some advantage i mean that i've never seen  i'd believe it is frivolous when you look at what lindsay said he clearly states in his opinion that as a matter of law the basis upon which so jernigan found that there was no controversy is inaccurate and i think he got that right i think he's very direct about that fact he says look we feel order and the receivership are inexorably time if the judge who created the receivership didn't have the authority to do he didn't have the authority to create a c order but no our chance to say look here are the contracts here our time sheets this is our and disputed claim and then you guys could come in with your evidence and say you know whatever whatever i don't know i mean all i know is you all have made allegations i've never seen the receivership including those which belong to my client you know who point mellow seat and which are for the last several years the sole and exclusive basis for cash coming into the receivership that no the point in quanta suit be part of the bankruptcy estate and that's contrary to what the fist circuit decided in terms of the authority of the receiver and the judge when the receivership was  instituted in two thousand is that before us on this appeal the judge lindsay ruled that judge six lindsay has stated that there is no basis for the bankruptcy  saying that no point in quantity and all of their assets should be turned over to the bankruptcy as part of the  that's what exterior is going to happen and that's that's not an issue before us today no but what is an issue before the court is the ruling by judge lindsay and as a matter of law he said she was wrong and they're asking for relief that they didn't ask for they didn't tell the judge look we understand your order you have the opportunity to do what's right and really manda and let us go in under keenan versus the hater when you don't give the come with these time records and the contracts and so forth and then what would they be required to do well you are certain it's a good question certainly more than just say there's a dispute for example  goes to use it shows that when i tell you we were we went to the bankruptcy court with the petition and we had a petition in creditors of over eight hundred thousand dollars and we thought we were going to have no problem showing that these are valid claims we chose what we thought was the simplest route to get for seek to say this to court orders on that as as mr simon i wasn't going to mention it because it's be on the record but since mr simon told you we got a judgment it shows you how simple it would have been in front of judge jury and had the stipulation been met and had we been able to come back in further develop the bona fide dispute for instance i would have made the same summary judgement case in front of judge jernigan that i made in front of judge