sense that briefing was completed the moving party p m c was dismissed along with all of its alleged claims there was never an offical complaint by pm see him w business jets was not a party transfer finally there was a trial in november two thousand and nine to read a trial to be before thanksgiving it was started and concluded we do not have any ruling so the issues on appeal we believe are that is certainly a risk and it would be our position that it's important that we have this issue resolved or perhaps the judge's ruling to provide some additional guidance to him and certainly from my client's standpoint the appellant's we are in the same position we were in a year ago except more harm to the extent of which is i know the debtor our claim with respect to the zero heidi trust that remains unsatisfied there's ten million dollars outstanding proxima so sitting here today we still have that same harm as a result of the wholesale in its order on preliminary injunction and that temporary restraining order in two of the the data phase factors that were analyzed by the district court the judge said the evidence needs to be fleshed out there's insufficient evidence there is a lack of clear evidence and in that instance then there certainly needed to be evidence taken at the january  the most significant of which is the lack of irreparable harm being shown there was no clear evidence of a threat of the irreparable harm instead there was a possibility supported by allegations of a possible threat of irreparable harm and that is inconsistent with the notion that injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and that is where we have  however in the end here are two of the four backers he said we need including probability of success on the merits he said we need to develop the record before determining whether or not there's a threat of injunctive relief or threat eighty five thousand subject well wasn't just any security interest it was a purchase potential purchase money interest which would have been severe to everybody else was as to those parts as to those parts and and here are those competing security interests we said before the preliminary injunction here and it was brought to the attention of both jam international and the court we will remove those from the foreclosure list those four hundred and ten dollars parts that you  doubt as to whether they had found all of the parts or had not to need to figure out which parts were boeing from the boeing aircraft and which parts were not so you know that was not a finding that he made with respect to irreparable harm what he said is there is and there was only one finding on there reparable harm in the preliminary injunction order that adopted the tiro and that was that  those parts there was a competing ownership interest and let's assume he meant both ownership and security because there was a lot still it would be difficult to determine where there were those part were were going to be sold for a specific price and what the amount of the money damages would be that would be able to determine that was his his conclusion j m international did argue that because the debtor jet midwest group had complete being scheduled of what their assets were that they that the court should disregard the entire list that is not sufficient to have clear evidence of a complete being interest in the inventory what about the fact that and i think this was undisputed that at one point judgment midwest group claimed we no longer have the boeing aircraft it's gone we have no access to it and then later on these parts show up disaster sort of lend some credence to the fact there may be some other parts in there that that the parties don't know about that actually belong to the boeing aircraft conduct some discovery and here are the questions to be answered that was the exact question to be answered is is there anything else and yet and actually the day before they have it then cherry january nd there was an and and with no evidence being taken to then just adopt that hero wholesale that's that's really what was critical and we think and we pointed to in our papers that was the critical error do you want us to do injunction and send it back for a hearing yes it will be the point of that when there's already been a full blown bench trial well currently you want to do something with it but quickly before the judge rules you want to do something with the property that so the issue so your honor we don't know how long it's going to be before and there is a ruling and every day without jet midwest  group having any restraint we assume it selling it it's collateral in the ordinary course of its business but we don't now we need to be able to proceed and so long as there is this injunction our hands are tied and we we sit here we want to proceed with what precisely want to proceed with the foreclosure sale we tried to mitigate against the damage by saying we'll agree to a trial as soon as possible we'll agree to argue on the bond but ultimately when tested on the evidence p m c withdrew and ultimately there was not one iota of evidence that there was any other parts beyond the four hundred and ten dollars identified by j m international so if there had been a test of the evidence we are confident that that there would have been no injunction that would have been issued and certainly no bond at all ultimately really and we've heard some arguments today were understandably there may be some life and death issues as opposed to a dispute over fines so we did not do that and i understand the pending issue we are certainly aware of that we still think it's important and it is a good case to analyze the court's conduct and operate our adopting a tiro wholesale without taking the evidence he cited as necessary before entering that moment but he's in a position now where he's heard all the trade so if we vacated this injunction i suppose he could enter a new one immediately based on that hearing if you still thought that was where he was going to mean ultimately ruling now he has the benefit of all the evidence so that would that would certainly move this appeal the knowledge that point be what's the what's the real purpose of our are going to hit in making a decision at this point even though it may not be mode and in technical  and that ties very much into the evidence that judge got and heard on january rd two thousand and eighteen going to what already then appeared to be a massive fraud committed by j m p against the bankruptcy judge in delaware all of the creditors of  what the preliminary injunction is doing right now is just to maintain the status quo for a little while longer until the district court is able to resolve that issue with finality collateral since the whole point of having collateral is that the creditor should not have to pursue an award of money damages and chase the enforcement of it so that was the legal principle that judge at hand was  addressing in relation to the irreparable harm analysis and this element of all collateral or concealment of the boeing aircraft parts collateral there are two types of collateral at issue here your honor number one is the going here graft motion following work out here with all of this inventory suddenly coming to light the problem was that there naturally were conflicting claims to it and these claims were complex for many reasons and it all started with the sheer amount of inventory that had been concealed from the bankruptcy judge and from us we were looking at forty six dollars aircraft and over even one thousand spare parts that had never been mentioned in j m p's worn statements to the federal bankruptcy judge in delaware and that we were looking out for the st time in this subsequent foreclosure announcement and according to the foreclosure announcement all of this inventory was in the thousand and eighteen and just to put that in perspective in terms of volume of inventory in terms of orderly liquidation value inventory what james g had omitted from its bankruptcy schedules was in excess of everything the j m p had included in the schedules so we were talking about the lion share of g m jesus state suddenly coming to light months after the conclusion of a bankruptcy case in the form of a foreclosure announcement  it that this workload or announcement is saying something entirely different from j m p's prior sworn statements to us in relation to the status of my client's lateral what explains this discrepancy what happened at that deposition j m p's counsel repeatedly instructed the mts thirty six representatives not to answer questions on that very topic and this was brought to judge good hands attention  r to that january rd there but the district court had these conflicting claims to inventory conflicting information and had to make a practical decision about what to do the district court's reasoning was that because of the way this auction was designed if the auction had gone forward it would have obliterated the district court's ability to get to the bottom of whose collateral is in this inventory and how should any purchase price allocated and that's because and was to sell everything whatever everything was in the form of one or two large lots of twenty days notice with no guidance from a professional broker or aviation expert expert who was  litigation counsel who had appeared in the fraudulent transfer case was managing this option process and the district court's concern clearly was that at the end of that of the day you're going to be looking at an empty warehouse no real idea of what had just happened let alone whose collateral had been sold or how to allocate and he purchased and so the just report me the practical decision to enter this b i which further postponed the auction date  that's all that happened or was it an appropriate exercise of discretion under data fees and it was particularly appropriate because at that january rd hearing counsel were in agreement as to the holding of an expedited trial so it was so what was happening here is only that the opponents were beginning to alter their conduct in response to the motion that had been made and the entry of orders by the district court in fact to tell us began to change their conduct in response to the district court's orders cataloguing of parts and that seems to be somewhat undisputed at least initially i take it the receivers roll on we're kind of going behind the what just happened in trial but the receivers role as you mention representative instructed by counsel refused to answer questions on this topic and this information was given to the just report before the january rd hearing the final point i'd like to make with the brief time i have remaining is to point order if that were the case and that was really what the judge was interested in that he would have restrained it jamie and there was no restraint of japanese west group no order that related to jeb and wes group at all the only party that was restrained was the secured lender field hockey trust and came w business trip purchase money security interest folder agreement and actually the security agreement of the prior valid lane was in august of september or august two thousand and fifteen before g m international even made a lo truly a competing interests than those could have been excluded from the foreclosure sale in fact voluntarily agreed to do so that should been the extent of the restraining order not the possibility of  actual harm but clear evidence of actual harm that's what we we had lacking here and with respect to the purpose of this appeal it's to write an abuse of discretion to sit and wait until judge ten makes his his decision is not being helped by no guidance from from above it would only help him so that his abuse of discretion is not exacerbate it right back here so we do ask for a decision on the appeal and believe it will help in the final resolution of the parties disputes with that unless there's any