audit the ongoing litigation in the southern district but made no attempt to remove mr phase from they knew was running that litigation and that the conflict that was became jurisdictions are written very differently than orders are opinions and common law jurisdictions so i would like you to help me at least by telling me as to both of the venezuelan court orders that  seventeen order which was exhibit a below so tell me what pages or what paragraphs i don't need any discussion i just want you to highlight the pages in the paragraphs that  order to perform their task efficient addition to the broad powers of already administering organization and oversight all the powers bestowed and then it reads it should be emphasized that the president as well as the members of the current board of directors will be relieved of their responsibilities well if the mortgage takes the position that this order gives them absolute power suspect would have taken some action in venezuela go to court in the last three years and subject matter be raised at any particular time that our la were a different question does a friend of this group ever see to intervene in the lawsuit in the district or whether an intervention as of ri i'm just asking the weather question because it seems to me that they're not a hardy in this lawsuit and they lawyers are not a party to this law suit at least the lawyers who are feeling you when you're your colleague at least according to the district court and it looks to me like what this whole lawsuit is about is kind of like a derivative action between two parties talking about who controls the company but the underlying lawsuit here is a copyright infringement case and if try as the does even seek to intervene that this was a company in turmoil when she stayed this action dismissing that that action and sending the parties to venezuela to get this issue was solved under cohen which we have cited at the time that we filed this litigation and i want to i want to read directly rulings not concluding the litigation but conclusively resolving claims of right separable from the collateral to the right to sort of reaction give this court jurisdiction i  is critical these folks meaning that came in after the case was involved that should have intervened and did not said now we're here have now settle this case  court many messages on behalf of let there live television your honour's the cases before the court today to decide two issues of law number one whether the allens has standing to bring this appeal and number two whether the district court was correct  was never in that is correct or out of they had an obligation to intervene or at least seek it in their vention and then perhaps following orders or rulings on that motion then they might have a standing to appeal but the fact of the and mr pitching says no my clients that's a disputed question it's completely separate from the mayor it's the case and i don't know records for that yes but let's assume for the sake of argument for a moment that the district court's wrong about how would we proceed but wouldn't would that be something that we need to review and with this be the proper way to receive an answer i believe respectfully that the proper way would be for the phrase faction to have moved to intervene because the district court ruled that now that would mean that they would concede that they're disregard the district court's orders the district court was very clear the room the rector the clerk to remove them as the attorneys and they continued to file documents on behalf of law as if that court order didn't exist and that's just not the way you're supposed to do it i think you've got to that question come to us is the only vehicle by which they can take an appeal by having rules for intervention as of right or from the simply and their failure to do that  position yes your honor they should have moved to intervene and they did not do so and which is related in the state court case in the rd district court of appeal we litigated the exact same issue of who controls the tailor there were two notices of appeal filed the rd district court remanded the case for evidence was going to determine who in fact controls the decision was ultimately that the junta controls that then it now the rd district court of appeal what they did is that they they treated the notice of appeal instead of striking at they they treated it as a petition for  and they entertain the appeal in that fashion that's what they chose to do however in this case after being placed on notice and have after seeing the result in rd district court of appeal i think at a minimum the frys faction had an obligation to do something similar to that wrestle case to the attorneys repeatedly ignored a disqualification order which is very similar to what has happened here they in this case they ignored the fact that the they were terminated for having a conflict of interest by the client and then the courts have to intervene in the district court granted intervention here as a rights or purposedly that would have been a disaster because they're not trying to assert a claim in support the issue that affects them differently they're trying to take over the litigation on the have a party that's already there the intervention would have been completely ineffective because a district court cannot be faced with two dueling entities that are trying to control the litigation of one party that's just it would have been left with a mess right well i think what happens district court grants the motion to intervene now what so if they move to intervene and you take some action on behalf of your client and decide it's been allowed to intervene the other faction says no don't do that we really want you to do this content standing this is properly air at least under the collateral order doctrine he wanted or whether the district court was correct and including your are your clients are the ones who control by a higher court that those decisions were appealed four times unsuccessfully including three appeals to the supreme court of venezuela that's in the record and one number two the two court orders that are at issue here one is by municipal court which is the equivalent court however the interesting part is not what's in the order but what's not in the order no point is any order say that mr fraser has authority to act on behalf of like the television and the frankly the interpretation that has it seems to me would have been on a motion to intervene with where's the not they could have taken that by but they have to proceed that way and wanted to perfect help from that decision that as you mentioned i authored all that really tells us what to do if we conclude the district court was right and i think judge marcus is question is is this properly before  right but the i speak as loudly as possible i apologize if i appear to be in the court's face i'd like to address some of the issues because some of the i believe some of things have been turned on their head the interlopers here are the who and mr phrase as chairman of the company an owner of the company which by the way let me just make it you can agree with me that the district court the determination of who controls what tell is really  no your honor because the basis upon which to court arrived at the legal conclusion as to who controls now who owns the company who controls this company was as a result of the interpretation of these for an order be correct however the court made its decision on the basis of the clarification order remember judge leonard and the consideration of the expert testimony  both of the subject orders our position is that those orders read in parity material with the two thousand and fourteen orders clearly set out in its scope of authority that the junt interloper they are the folks that came into an existing litigation in the southern district and said here we are they should have been required to intervene and it not now the courts analysis as to a one or taken together with the december seventeen order and the january eighteen order what the orders mean as to control is that purely fact harming or exam a mix question of law in fact as you see here as i see it it's a question of law the interpretation of these orders that answers directly the scope this company thirty six million dollars lawsuit when this one was appointed in venezuela to audit just look at these orders it was their responsibilities were those orders a silent about them going into the