complex and with all the different holdings and related parties and so on and so forth it does not immediately become evident who may have a conflict or not just simply the fact that normal recusal kind of mechanisms don't seem to work because of just the sheer complexity of this case and all that stuff as you know this case was argued before in the late discovered conflict cause it to be pushed up to this and then in the configuration of the panel it was determined another conflict so i just want to be transparent the reconstitution has not been doing pick and judges it's a function of working through all these filings and people determining either through relationships and there's or somebody else holdings it sarah that there's conflicts so rather than push you to a nother oil argument session with another be the ones to to rev it up all right that said  separate district court rulings that have now been overturned centuries of precedent confirm that restitution is appropriate in these circumstances as this court recognized in credit it is the power and duty of the court what he has lost by an erroneous judgment restitution is necessary here on two independent grounds first because the windfall payments were compelled by court orders that were later overturned and second because the payments were made over p s objections pursuant to a disputed contract interpretation and keeping his position on that issue was ultimately vindicated under the restatement and the case law cited in our briefs which class council does not even dispute restitution is warranted equity will not suffer a wrong with out of anything in iran has been done here to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars that should never have been paid it is undisputed that these payments summit was between the party wanted not with the court involved i think the court ultimately approved it but the actual settlement itself was between the parties am i correct where do we draw the line i guess i'm looking our court order this are or how much of it was b p being involved in drafting the settlement so what but it ordered by the court or whether b p and the others fig it out by themselves without the courts involved where do we draw the line here were unquestionably the result of the district court's orders to do two separate district court orders that that but for both of them these the money would not have gone out the door the first order being the part court initially agreed with the claims administrator and thereby allowed the claims administrator to begin paying these awards inappropriately but in addition b p has the right under the agreement under section six and eighteen of the agreement b p reserve the right to go to the court and challenge awards that were appropriate under this process that the agreement set forth and remember this is a rule twenty three district court approved the district court entered agreement so it's not just a private side agreement between the parties consider appeals in these matching case cases why couldn't you have docketed that global ruling in an individual claimants case and then appealed here just like in the nonprofit cases where he also issued that global ruling boring appeals and yet you docket the you docket is ruling an individual case and got that up to the circuit that's very different your honor in the nonprofit appeals because we were able to bring requests divisional review to the court under section six of the agreement the court denied those requests the only problem was we couldn't appeal because the court refused to put those denials on the docket but we had a piece of paper from the court review denied for this award so what we did is we document those pieces of paper with respect to a specific award and file the notice of appeal in this court in those cases that's not the way it's just a work but what allowed that and under the circumstances here because you do have a piece and you have a piece of paper here i understand it wasn't for claimant x y z but then just a piece of paper here where he said i'm not allowing appeals in any of these matching cases we didn't have that piece of paper that was an order about the rules and we appealed from that order we filed an appeal to this court and  this year this court reversed but why couldn't you file that in individual cases an appeal those individual cases docketing the order like you did in the non profits grindr stand he wasn't docketing those orders but in the nonprofit you docketed yourself the order from which you then took appeal well i think you were i mean let's face it as this court said in the nonprofit decisions the process that was followed there was quite a stretch given the way it's supposed to work this would have been a further stretch because remember the may twentieth or the you're talking about isn't about any of these awards all it says is don't bring these to me i won't even address them so it's not like we have and indeed the vast majority of these awards have not even been issued at the time that order was was entered it would be quite bizarre to say that b p could appeal based on an order that doesn't refer to an award that hasn't yet been issued yet you know six months later and finally if he has that right it still has that right because because that because there's no these these individual wards have not been documented so there's still nothing on the docket at every possible opportunity and we filed our request for restitution essentially as soon as we have the ability to show that in fact under the corrected policy resulting from the reversal of the matching order he was entitled to restitution but you wouldn't even be in a world of needing restitution if you could have got individual cases up to then it just the cases would have still been alive and the awards would have been altered to reflect the requirement that well when she's mad you still would have been in need of restitution you because of the way that this records rolls on judicial review work if you're allowed to file a request for judicial review that stays the payment of the money into other requests for judicial review is resolved but because we weren't allowed to file a request we're going to review we couldn't stop the from going out the door we tried every way we could to try and we filed motions to enjoin the money going out the door that the district court denied that so we tried every way we could but we had no ability because of the district court's multiple orders that have now been overturned and we have no ability to stop the money from going out there are so we so under any circumstance would be seeking restitution our right to restitution became concrete in may of twenty fourteen we sought restitution the following month so again b p has has done everything it could so so order after order of the district court all of which have now been overturned cars and somebody threw out the door that's that's the classic case for restitution under the supreme court cases we cite under section eighteen of the restatement the district court's only reason for denying restitution was this reliance on the release but that reliance was incorrect from multiple reasons the first being this court has already rejected the release based arguments in the final rules and nonprofit decisions referenced in our twenty eight j letters in those cases class counsel and individual claimants relied on the same provisions of the release at issue here and made the same arguments in an effort to prevent b p from obtaining judicial review of individual awards after they've been paid less counsel argued that the claimants quote signed this release and went on their way the sudden agreement provides b p no right to force them back close quote claimants argue that quote the release and submitted in exchange for payment and receipt of settlement funds for closes this appeal by making the payment on receipt conclusive as to the claims at issue close quote this court rejected those arguments in footnote a nonprofit decision the district court's order barring restitution is therefore contrary to precedent and must be reversed in addition even leaving aside the fact that precedent compels that result courts reliance on the release is wrong because the release just doesn't lead to the conclusion that the district court reached in the release claimants released their claims against b p b p nowhere released its rights to restitution to judicial review or to have the settlement agreement enforced according to its terms to the contrary as i've noted in sections six and eighteen of the agreement b p reserve the right to seek judicial review just to challenge excessive awards which is the right that was denied here as a consequence of which it's needs to seek restitution only the district courts erroneous rulings not the terms of the settlement of the lease resulted in the unjust enrichment at issue here that's council point to various provisions in the agreement but th basic points first that the agreement and releases would remain effective regardless of specific potential future events of which occurred and which are completely irrelevant here taking your point about the release but  enormous to put it mildly terms of the number of pages and so forth and all that but it certainly appeared that the parties being sophisticated on both sides and all that have just kind of a range of circumstances of possible change either do legal rulings or whatever but it strikes that the parties intended ostensibly that though they might be future certainly trikes one given the language in it that there was some thought there could be legal developments all kinds of elements that are not known in the present but there was not meant an impossible you know view it was irrevocable but rather we're not trying to revoke the agreement we're trying to enforce the very it's important to look at the actual language the specific language in the agreement first of all there is specific language that talks about for instance if the court hasn't yet given final approval that the court approves it an appellate court reversed the approval it's it's possible that the terms of the proposed settlement may change and then it says none of those  revoke the settlement agreement or the release which is what the other language i think your honor was referring to talks about we're not trying to revoke revoke those provisions we're trying to enforce those provisions and remember the it's all parties agreed that when  party when an individual claimant is issued an award by the somewhat program and receives the release that the draft individual release that comes as part of that award notice and that and the claimant at that time has them has the right if they so choose to sign the release and that means regardless of what might happen down the road if the settlement were later overturned there's still going to get whatever money is coming to them under the terms of the settlement agreement that all parties agree it's not the amount of money stated in the release because there are the rights of appeal for both parties and the right to only at the end of that process is that amount do you think you have a question about injunctions or some practical questions there are hundreds of claimants who are overpaid according to your analysis you want the injunction to apply to their entire award or just the overage and second of all are you identifying specific property or just an injunction saying don't spend three hundred sixty thousand dollars and you need to keep it in your bank come in so the injunction relates specifically the request for the injunction relates specifically only to the two hundred claimants for which we were able to calculate over payments and only to the overpayment amount were very clear we're not trying to seek an injunction with anything else and only with respect to  the property at issue that is the money they received or the proceeds of it just it would not be somebody has if somebody had had burnt the money up right and that money was gone and there were no proceeds of it to for what for the the other side raises about notice and it just doesn't seem like it's a very specific injunction if we were to to issue it to just say whatever that two hundred thousand dollars still is don't don't use it anymore but your hon using this matching term and it is easy to go back and determine if there was an unjust enrichment or overpayment how much each of these individual companies owes origin or more involved situation of looking at every specific payment and whether there was overpayment and how much it was i think it's somewhere in between but i think the simplest way to respond your question your honor is is at that when the when this  court ordered that all of the awards that had gone through the process had been calculated by the claims administrative it would not have been paid would be recalculated under policy for ninety five there's about i think there are fourteen hundred of them and he sent them back to the claims administrator and the claims administrator has been going through the process of reach out goes under policy for ninety five all we are asking is that very same thing be done with these awards at issue here i had a question similar to the one  just cost as it was just trying to get a grasp around the scope of this injunction so to grant you the relief you requests and the injunction the direction would be for the district court to apply the same post if circuit ruling methodology to these claims that have been identified is is that the drift of what's been a but in terms of the courts and the claims of minister and b p agree with the proper interpretation of the agreement and that's recalculated and to the extent there was an excess which we've shown there clearly was to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars he should be entitled to there nothing has occurred to those potential or putative claimants to cease and desist in your spending i mean everything is just kind of status quo from the time that they received the money is that accurate i mean whatever they were doing or not doing with much nothing has this litigation independency i don't mean this litigation this phase of dispute over the quote over payments nothing before any of these awards was paid so we are appealing that we had some of the injunction to prevent this money going out the door from the district court and from this court so we were again pursuing every opportunity we could and notifying class counsel at every turn and class counsel represent the members of the class that's the whole point of a rule twenty three settlement the class council and class representatives are deemed to be standing up there on behalf of and representing the members of the class last council had noticed at every stage and we filed this restitution motion and everything else we found that in the district court we observe the service of process requirements set out by the district court who said anything away are entitled to receive notice to file a form and obtain electronic notice and in service through electronic notice is deemed to be proper service under the federal rules we get all of that more than a thousand lawyers receive notice of our motion for restitution now if there are individual claimants who somehow claim they didn't know that's not our fault we can't reach out to individual members of the class and communicate with them our job is to communicate with the class counsel as class counsel job with th necessary to provide further information to the clients that they represent as class counsel so there's no there's no notice issue here ok so connected what you just said the lawyer is who may have been involved with the particular claimants so their fees and so  are any issue as well yes right i mean if individual claimants would have had had lawyers that would have shared the fees and b p would be entitled to restitution against them as well you have an expectation they haven't spent the money well we don't have to you you're right it's not a serious question but i get it that maybe the claimants haven't but anyway that's not just trying to understand the sheer mechanics of this are taking the time we actually some good but you preserve rebuttal time and we're not rushing through this so we're just trying to get is good and understand as we can of everything thank you all right professor benefit yes your honor in light dorian steps the symbol i'd like to make three primary points the first two a procedural ones that the formal request for an injunction is improper under the due process clause it's improper under rule sixty five it's improper under and as not giving notice to the parties who are risk under many cases from this court the second one  waived any claim for retrospective relief by not only not appealing from the terminations with regard to the seven hundred ninety three businesses that issue here but by also never once in ten filings before this court and the district court ever asking for retrospective relief in any form and in the third one has to do with the notion of restitution and the basic argument there is that restitution is not a right restitution is an equitable remedy restitution requires the balancing of the equities that is why contrary to counsel opposite suggestion that there are centuries of precedent there is not a single case that we have found not a single case ever cited by b p in this litigation in which a restitution area order on a mass has been granted by any court at any time in the united states in britain in zealand in australia in canada in any country that operates under the principles of equity so that the idea that you can simply file on mass and get restitution and disregard the command of section eighteen g of the restatement that there are affirmative defenses that have to be maintained in each case including the right of notice including the right to make sure that the funds have not been dissipated based upon reasonable reliance detrimental reliance upon the receipt of the funds those of the three arguments i'd like to make and if it please the court i'll start with the first one with the question of whether the council's as notice to the class council should be fisher well noticed a class council took the form of filing in this court and in the district court the filing had an appendix an exhibit that listed the businesses and issues that exhibit in the public record is blank that exhibits in the sealed records consist simply of claims numbers we don't represent claimants in the individual claims of ministration and we know of no case where you can give a representation you can give notice to counsel beyond the terms of the class representation that would suffice for any kind of restitution order there is just no case that stands for any such  proposition one billion dollars in awards was paid out by the time of initial approval of the settlement by the district court in late december december twenty one of two things two thousand and twelve that means one billion dollars of awards went out before there was class counsel before there was anybody even punitively representing them over three billion dollars had gone out by the time of the decision deepwater horizon one in this case these claims that were that went down simply with no reason no request no appeals no demand for the restitution of those claims in any form before this court in cases such as parker versus ryan from this court that we cite it's a long established proposition that if you want an injunction to rule sixty five you have to give notice you have to give direct notice to the party that will be adversely affected by the injunction you cannot have an x party proceeding you cannot have a proceeding in which you don't know in which you tie up people's properties that's the basics of due process we cite connecticut versus door we cite in north georgia finishing versus die camp but we could cite one hundred supreme court cases for the proposition that you can't take people's property you can't lean against their bank accounts you can't seize their assets without some kind of notice the reason that this is so important is that if you freeze the count of businesses and the business the recovery that they got is commensurate to the size of their business you freeze their business you freeze their accounts you put them out of business and it is a shocking proposition unprecedented that you can impose a lien on an ongoing business that would basically shut it down without even giving them notice in the data access opinion deepwater horizon six this quote cited with approval a footnote footnote five from judge clement's decision dissenting from the denial of rehearing on bonk in deepwater horizon three i'm using that terminology deepwater horizon three was the merits of the b l application judge climate says nothing in this opinion and she's in dissent prevents b p from going back and reclaiming as to fraud on an individual basis going back and saying the so ward was improper and it was fraud and it was mistake something of that sort this court in the data access opinion in chief judge stewart's opinion says that is the proper way to go if there is a problem with an award you can always go back to it now didn't mr hunger makes a big point but what about the nonprofits wasn't that a situation in which there was the ability to go back and challenge you ward there is a huge difference between the non profits and here in the nonprofit case they appealed they appealed now to the appeal does something important even when the money is paid under restatement section of restitution section eighteen you do not have to stop the money from going out to preserve your right to restitution that's why the restatement is absolutely clear you do not have to post a super serious bond you do not have to seek an injunction or anything of sort as long as there is an appeal there are no vested expectations and this is my money with regard to the nonprofits they maintain the appellate chain with regard to these cases there has never been an appeal docket there has never even been a judicial request made for the return of the money in deepwater horizon one in general comments of opinion she says what does b p want why is it that we are reversing the district court in be in deep water horizon one she says b p seeks a stay of continued distribution of its assets continued distribution of its assets in footnote fourteen of deepwater horizon one in judge clement's opinion she refers to b p s request which is now being granted by the district by the court of appeals as a targeted injunction and ship the targeted injunction makes no mention of getting money back from anybody the targeted injunction is there should be no payments and then there's a lot of gory of activities such as construction lawyers various categories and what's called the ni codes the formal department of labor codes for these particular businesses but there is never a request for money to come back there's no request made in the nov twenty one two thousand and thirteen emergency motion to enforce which is the post b e l there's not even a request made until june of two thousand and fourteen in may of two thousand and fourteen may nineteenth two thousand and fourteen judge clement again in the dissent from the denial of rehearing on bond on the b t l appeal says that there are only the individual actions against fraud that are left and that's the position that she takes in dissent but that's sided with the prove will by this court in deepwater horizon six in the data access case where if you make this waiver argument in front of judge r b a and i guess even going back to your first argument about notice to all the claimants the seven hundred plus claimants i just saw that or no there was a footnote that raise something like twenty defenses in the district court is that the only so for both of these arguments you've made where's the where were they properly briefed in the district  district court we said and your honor citing exactly to the right document in the district court we said we are addressing only the questions about the interpretation we think that there's individual questions those have to be taken up by the individuals and they will have the following defenses that we can anticipate and we drop a footnote in the list of all those defenses that's correct your honor and because it seems especially going back to your first arguing about notice if that had been a more prominent issue in the distro court it's something that might have been burdensome but was fairly easily correctable by b p i mean a camera that's the basis for a ruling it goes back they send out what is it seven hundred ninety two notices and then this whole issue resumes in the district court and ultimately back here well your honor i think the reason they didn't do that they could have done that from the beginning because they have the information we don't have the information it's not reflected in the record but as soon as we got served with this we went before the district court and we said we don't even know who these individuals are because we have all we have is file claim numbers and we don't have that information because we don't represent claimants in the individual cases and we asked the district court what are we supposed to do with this point what does this mean what is our what is our responsibility and we were told to take this up as a matter of law and so we filed the breeze that your honor is referring to which says in a footnote says if the individuals were on notice if the individuals had the ability to represent themselves we anticipate that they would raise all these defenses but we are in a difficult position as class counsel because we don't represent individual claimants in the processing of their individual claims which is why it in a typical there's been many appeals to this course this court is well aware in most of them we are not present so in the nonprofit case they specifically asked me to argue on their behalf normally i would not have handled that class counsel would not have handled that because that's a matter of an individual award but because it was a issue behind it that's why we appeared so the answer is that we didn't know what position we were posture we were in you seem to be of the wrong people in court they need to have had the seven hundred ninety three people in here to get this return restitution well we think it's not available anyway but we think that that's at the very least due process if they want to freeze their property thing want to seize their property if they want to have the force of this court impose a limitation on the exercise of private property they have to give them notice they have to giving up to be heard and this notice is constitutionally adequate that's our first let's shift gears out i want to go back and reread what was said about that i may have seen it ople equally but i don't remember it as the front and center headline proposition put forward from your side but we got it for purposes but the clock runs away shift to your next area ok the next areas the waiver point i've made that point and now i'd like to turn to the to the restitution proper point counsel refers to restitution as a right counsel in his brief refers to the burdens of the party seeking reza so restitution is being slight both of these are wrong restitution is an equitable remedy and the reason that restitution is not available here primarily is that there is a reasonable honorable expectation on the part of the recipients that they were done with this case that this was their money they were allowed to get on with their lives if one looks at section sixty five of the restatement of restitution section sixty five says that if you change your material circumstance in reliance upon the money coming to you restitution is not available the importance of section sixty five is that it's it's basically a principle of detrimental reliance as applied in the equitable context of restitution it says if i get money and every reasonable person in my circumstance would say this is your money i mean i don't to go use it particularly business i commingle it i decide to expand inventory i decide to do whatever i do as a business dependent because now i have thirty thousand dollars that i didn't have before and the importance of that is that there has to be some reason for person to know that the money is at risk that's the principle of restitution and what those one of those principles well number one section eighteen of the restatement says if it's still up on appeal if it's still up on appeal obviously it's not over nobody can say well i want the district court therefore the whole game is over because there is an appeal that the general policy was on a p o o b all these claimants claims section eighteen g which i mentioned before of the restatement on restitution says there are affirmative defenses which have to be weighed in every restitution case and the reason that that's important is was there detrimental reliance was there notice that section sixty not moved to the to that one for second section sixty nine of the restatement says you have to give notice and has to be the kind of notice that puts you makes you aware that your risk so that you don't you know go in and expand your business in reliance upon this money because you know that if you that you're at risk how are you at risk well there's a couple of things the restatement tells us if there's an appeal is number one if there's fraud or mistake is number two says what if you had a claim for a thousand you got checked for ten thousand well that's a mistake restatement addresses that directly nobody can have a reasonable expectation in the recovery of funds when you've gotten ten times as much as you believed you were entitled to but these individuals had no reason to believe why because they signed a release that said nothing that happens here in the after will ever affect you and be after the horizon cases in that case the court said that a claimant who gets an offer sheet from the from the gulf coast claims facility to the precursor to the court supervised settlement fun the claimant who gets an offer sheet who doesn't even executed yet but who seeks to enforce the terms of it when b p wants to pull out of it has a reasonable expectation that that's what the offer is  entitle to enforce that contract here by contrast we have for cycle age of the settlement agreement leave aside the release recitals h speaks of this being a final binding contract we have section four point four four point four point one zero point three which says the payment the execution of the payment not the signing of the release but the of the payment is full consideration for the claimants claim all of that regardless whether we go under contract principles that says a binding contract or release of an asset seems like now you're saying more than all these different expectations from the release of the settlement agreement factoring into the restitution analysis as opposed to just being a complete contractual bar which is how judge bar b i read it judge barb read that the settlement agreement and the release combined formed a binding contract and he using his oversight of this and the specialized knowledge that that he has said i think that a reasonable person of these circumstances would view this as a final and binding contract i'm offering another argument which is we are here on an appeal on a restitution klein and the independent of restitution is a different if we go back five hundred years in britain restitution is a different body of law than contract contract is that law restitution is an equity so they are here under equity if we were courts we would sit differently and we would this would be a court of equity it as a court of equity this court would not rant them the relief because a reasonable expectation had been formed regardless of whether it rises to the level of a full contract or not elton johnson raise the judge burb only make that in the context of an equitable analysis and it seems to me one practical response to a couple of your arguments today is to say well send it back let b p give all these people the recall notice that you think is required all seven hundred ninety to let those people in their lawyers or else they want to bring in come before the district court and then the district court can balance these equities and figure out what the expectations were which which is largely going to be an individualized inquiry at lisa's to some of these defenses i waiver is not a problem that is the fact that they knew that this sit in they never took this appeal all this time has passed some of these people got paid three years ago rights even under concepts like sixty b this would be way out of t ime but if waiver is not a problem then at the very least you would have to send it back if they want to pursue this and they want an injunction for individualized notice because otherwise it's unconstitutional and if it were to go back it would have to be individualized if it's of restitution claims under the expressed language of the restatement on restitution and there's also old pieces i mean after the last start because looking back at old restitution cases from this court i found one that will echo lance the ants from one nine hundred eighty one six thirty four f second eight fifty where this court says if somebody starts using the money to change the circumstance of their life we think it's not necessary because they didn't preserve it through the avenues of appeal and restitution should not be a way of getting around appellate review they make the claim that they were barred from ever filing an the injunction they seek not only goes to the claimant it goes to the claimants lawyers accountants we we it's class counsel we couldn't even find who those people are we have no idea how to count or to counted out jennifer these not sure i understand how that process occurred the methodology used by mr gasparo is open opaque but the key thing i think is not only that he reviewed only a subset here but the conclusion he draws is exactly the wrong one for restitution ery purposes the conclusion he draws is that these are cash flow through businesses they don't retain huge amounts of cash i don't know what business retains huge amounts of cash i usually a failing business but but they don't retain clash of course they don't retain cash isa small businesses who comes in it goes out that's the nature of the business and so if you take mystical sparta's analysis which you find is that to give an injunction against the use of their assets is a death blow is a death blow to the business and it would be outrageous and unprecedented to do that without individual notice to do that in this kind of mass proceeding the was  let's assume we could cash or notice you know argument about the notice and we see that is just a precursor of more litigation back down back up here in sarasota but for whatever reason for the moment  notice but into the the mechanics of this deal you are going to release b p said oh we're not trying to get out of the settlements are either release we're trying to force it interpret it properly there was a judicial intervention a judicial order which ordered payment on other than the proper accrual basis that sort of supervening over the top who is being made on all these claims yada yada yada so succinctly put getting past the notice issue not to release what portions of this release are not to release the he's section four point four one zero point three establishes that this is full payment in consider the payment constitutes full consideration for the claim under the terminology used by this court of the reasonable expectations in the elton johnson case that is the basis for an individual to form a reasonable expectation that he or she is done with litigating with b p over this i stress that restitution is a balance of the equities that's the main thrust of the restatement of restitution that's the thrust of section eighteen that's the importance of eighteen g that's the disagree with the contract will bar basis of the dish of course and now that the fifth circuit should nonetheless rebook the improperly and most of all it would be deeply unfair to these businesses who have done nothing wrong they filed a claim they got paid they went on with their lives that's what the legal i'm supposed to let them do they did it they continue their businesses and now three years later some lawyer namely me who they've never heard of is standing before a court trying to defend their interests and i don't even know who they are that's an outrageous outcome under the principles of equity that should not be allowed your honor but it's a heavy balance on their side that they want to add a million or two million or what fourteen million dollars that the courts now said the settlement innit provide for i mean that's that's the balancing that i don't think our coach should do in the first instance that's the that's the equitable balance and they say it's a right and we say that's not what the what the principles of equity allow the equities it's not a contract claim they're making what they're saying is it's equitable and once they say second well you have to balance the equities you rather let me address if i may that waiver argument first there's no waiver by not seeking retrospective restitution any relief before you've gotten a reversal of the orders that created the problem in the first place the restatement section eighteen comment h makes clear the right to seek restitution doesn't even accrue until after the reversal and here as i've explained it wasn't until may of two thousand and fourteen when the district court had decided how these claims should properly  be calculated that b p was able to show the unjust enrichment that gives rise to the right to restitution we filed our request the following month the idea that there was no notice to class members is simply impossible to maintain given the whole predicate of rule twenty three which is that class council represent the class in the deepwater horizon one case where we were challenging the underlying interpretation we did precisely what we did here we didn't try to serve individual class members who were interested we couldn't hear the findings aren't allowed to reach out to individual class members some of whom don't have their own lawyers and are only represented by class council the way you give notice to class members who are interested in a particular dispute is by serving class counsel that's the whole point of a class action and rule twenty three certified class the idea that somehow you give notice to individual class members would up in the entire rule twenty three system rule sixty five percent of orthodox edge of any cases saying that in a rule twenty three t injunction and and the threat of the restitution area right that we're talking about the district court ruled as a categorical matter we can't seek restitution from anyone what we're asking for is a ruling from this court overturning that error and saying yes he is allowed to seek restitution to be sure an individual claimant might have an individualized defense based on the equities if they can show that there's some reason why it would be in equitable in their particular circle to get the if you get the injunction their funds are restrained before they have an opportunity to present that  well again that the injunction is based on the irreparable injury to b p if i guess that we need to separate the injunction and the restitution the district court in intertwines them which is why they're both properly in front of this court under twelve ninety one are there also independent jurisdictional bases for that but but the fact is even if even if you re mandated for the district court to have further proceedings on the injunction which we don't think is necessary but if you did that that wouldn't mean that this court should not reverse just ripped the district court's categor refusal to let p p seek restitution at all you could be first that send it back for further proceedings with respect to the injunction and further proceedings with respect to ending any individual eyes to defenses that an individual claimant might have to show that in their particular case  by refusing to prevent this money from going out the door until b p had exhausted its appellate rights and by refusing to let b p to proceed with individual appeals and forcing it to proceed only by way of the categorical appeal to the interpretation counsel says that we somehow waived by not pursuing individual appeals the district court blocked us from doing that we can hardly be penalized for that and we were already at that time appealing from the underlying interpretation which class counsel well knew since they represented the class in that case even though only certain members of the class were interested in that issue which pertain to only the business economic loss claimants not all members of the class we didn't hear them complaining that somehow we had failed we had waived our rights to challenge that interpretation because we haven't notified individual class members and again they didn't even raise notice argument in the district court notice argument and the waiver arguments fail for multiple reasons with respect to the one other point in the notice your honor counsel repeatedly said that they don't know who these claimants are  about individual claims before the claim is award it was undisputed in that appeal and it's perfectly clear from the terms of the agreement that both sides class counsel and b p get full access to the claim once the award issues so for every single one of these seven hundred  ninety three claimants he and class council know precisely who they are and can and are equally positioned to reach out to them individually if individual notice is necessary but of course he is constrained by ethical rules for reaching out individually to individual members of the class class council is not since they represent them so again the idea that they somehow couldn't know to find these individuals of individual notice as necessary is preposterous the johnson case is completely irrelevant it doesn't have to do with the settlement agreement it doesn't have to do with this release it didn't have to do with a right to restitution because of reversal of iranian orders it's completely beside the point and says nothing about the proper answer there at the end of the day the only reason we're standing here and the only reason the piece shareholders have been wrongfully deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars that should never have gone out the door and everyone agrees that it should never have gone up to go under the law as it stands and has it as an end of the proper interpretation of the settlement agreement as it was written from day one and  reminds me of chief judge stuart butler questions of us talking about an unpredictable interpretation but what this court held and what the district court ultimately held on remand is what the parties intended is precisely the interpretation that is not reflected in policy for ninety five so this was not some unimaginable interpretation this was the original intent of the language and of the parties agreement and the problem was it was misinterpreted for a time and injury resulted from the judicial misinterpretation so that the equities on b p side if their individual of equity and there's no such thing as a right and while i get an individual defenses can be raised the supreme court has been quite clear in arkadelphia which is side and i briefs the court said quote the party against  is entitle to entice in the event of reversal to be restored to what he lost in the court when under saying that every court has inherent power to correct that which has been done by virtue of its process is a coming as i was saying we will take it out of the business side of this soon as we can so that you out can get back to doing those things which you do best and so we will do our duty to get it decided without und delay because of the obvious importance to both sides so we have no reason to you know hang on to it any language so any lower than we need to right wrong or otherwise i go will be to try to get something sided more sooner than later so whatever you have to do about it again so that said again we appreciate the briefing in the argument both times in the case we are aware of those and of listening to the other all arguments so to th extent we made out of ask you a question about it we listen to the argument questions of now one bust a briefing here and the rest of it so i think we've got it we'll do our best to seeing you all back across the plaza with that this