ruling issued by the bankruptcy court by way of factual background briefly a company that we're referring to was euro gas to suit the slogan slovak republic in a multi million dollar the slovak republic then then appealed the standing issue to this court in by that point in time i am i correct that the arbitration proceeding terminated terminated a message when i tried to get it that said that that year is an arbitration proceeding that is imminent that you're ok as he has threatened to start a new arbitration proceeding  there is an opening arbitration proceeding in which to predicate prudential critical standing is the degree of person as we sit here now correct there is a claim by one of the parties that because it is affecting that positions in an arbitration proceeding there is no arbitration receiver right now that is correct or in that over tradition dispose of the  euro gas too did not acquire them by means of a merger with the dollar but did they deny that they might have acquired them in some other way i don't know and is that arbitration decision does it have any jurisdictional force to it or would you have to then now go to a court to enforce that arbitration i apologize i don't know that it's an international arbitration forseen and i don't know the answer may be important i assuming that the abandonment was proper when you lose it it really doesn't matter i said that you're not going to complain about the fact if there were if there was a valid abandonment if there was two hundred fifty thousand dollars paid compromise issues it needed to look at all of them and so it was a back up argument to say look if you're going it if you're going to go that way to bankruptcy court then you need to look at all of the elements i mean i agree with you the court needs to decide what this was before it can decide what the rules are to apply and i agree completely that this was an abandonment and therefore as something a merit you look at section five fifty four is when we decide that it be relatively easy but your what the litigation it at least a fact finder a bankruptcy court could legitimately find correct that there would be the necessity of or the prospect for some litigation even if it of some litigation somewhere right no our our whole point was we have offered to purchase the town claims on an as is where is no questions that spaces republic got was not it was nothing because it was on a quick line basis there was no warranty of title of why the trustee could hear him brought in as a third party right i don't think so i think we definition would be is burdensome because if we take that agreement it costs the state some one hundred thirteen million dollars that by anybody's definition is real money i don't understand how it cost the state anything because if we let it go to the slovak republic we then lose the hundred thirteen million dollars that the  more value than the character that you are offering you know i think you're conflating the issue is the estate is the estate and interesting is responsible for bringing in whatever she can but but it is what it is playing we had objected to it was clear we think it was clearly an invalid claim if the court afforded us the right to prosecute our objection before entertaining the settlement then we would've done it with them there would have been no difference in any she has to deal with that claim and administer and either allow it or deny it but it can't she say that the burden that that plane it's so great it would make it would make burdensome to an agreement with the sort republic which would void which would mean anything i'm going to have to deal with that hundred thirty million i think in certain circumstances perhaps but remember here we had already the claim was invalid on its face and so there was no no benefit for the estate by having that claim withdrawn whatsoever and it didn't increase or decrease the pot of money that property would create a burger right and if it does create a burden then the bankruptcy court has discretion on whether or not to authorize it dan grech yes and but you're done arguing the second part of the prong of the analysis you're just questioning the existence of the burke yes but i would go in so well in your bridge the fair to say that in your briefs to us you have only argued the first part of th challenge is understood that maybe i pathetically was the first part of the burden you're saying that it wasn't a burden because the trustee could help except that the slovak republic million dollars i know i don't know how how you satisfy the statutory requirement well the second part of the burden that it might very well bear on the second part of the burden but i don't understand how the decision on whose offer to intelligence to accept the slovak republic offer that would have your would have been no burden why do we consider any offers don't it isn't the existence of the property either burdensome or i why do we consider the existence of birth only against the backdrop of what offers were presented to the trustee i don't know how you decide burden in a vacuum your honor burden yours is very fact intensive and the critical accepting your agassiz offer i'm not accepting the slovak republic offer at that point with their head then the prospect of litigation for the trustee or in it as i said i think this issue is highly fact intensive based only on the fact that the trustee and what was an extremely adversarial three way negotiation chose to side with mr byers client and accept a settlement agreement with your own gas  to do we have the party seated at the table they are today because i think it's a court may have just served it could've gone the other way and the analysis we could have been having the same discussion only with the party switch the table i want to and limit the claims against your state such that such that the proper creditors share the maximum amount in this case the trustees efforts to do that ran into what was  international investor arbitration panel in france under it under a treaty between the united states and the slovak republic these parties had spent literally millions of dollars fighting with each other the trustee realized almost immediately upon talking to the parties when the case began that there was no possible way to do anything in the bankruptcy estate to benefit any bunny other than to rise above the fight between these two spectacularly good result it was not one that the trustee believed she would be able to achieve when the case we are now faced with a situation where but it's really a stranger to the it really is quite offensive to the whole purpose of the bankruptcy code well you know that but it's a pretty negative light of what they what they did now is under seal with their argument is that under the stanchion there if the trustee had accepted the two hundred fifty thousand dollar quickly offer from the slovak republic there would have been no burden on the estate and therefore even though it if if if the issue were what king solomon might have done the result might have been different under the bankruptcy code there would have been no statutory authorization to authorize the abandonment if retention of the property had not been burdensome and it wouldn't have been a burden if the trustee had accepted the two hundred fifty thousand dollars offer so my question is what burden with the revenge of the stay if the if the trust attached and the string attached was the trustee had to voice her opinion that the claims were not abandoned in the first instance in the trustees judgment that along with just the fact that she took any action whatsoever provided it was within the knowledge of the trustee to trustee who's now a judge joel marker of utah bankruptcy court there was a pretty compelling evidence that he was aware of and dealt with these claims and there were there were competing expert opinions by respected practitioners submitted originally in the in the paris arbitration that were provided to the  after all of the trustees investigation and review she testified before judge thurmond that she believed that although it was an issue that she thought that the state prevail on as to whether they were abandoned when the case was closed the first time or not there was definitely a good faith argument that the that they were that they were abandoned previously and in any case the one thing we knew was is that if we did anything other than if we tried to claim any interest or even to do what the slovak republic wanted to do and articulate our beliefs that we own them or i determine whether they were abandoned two thousand six hundred or in two thousand and sixteen the only thing that mattered was that they were a band and then they said that we now know they're banned and that means the dead are then had them what they took issue was was the next step of the of the equation a fight that the trustee was invited to participate in and flying wisely which was the fight over the effect of a merger that opinions and competing testimony on that front as well and that's the issue that the slovak republic prevails on in the international arbitrators concluded that euro gas too did not own the interest that ownership which i think are inevitable and it's really easy to say well that's an easy issue and it should be contrary much to deal with it but that is the history of this party i mean the history of these parties is is that you approve a settlement that's the best deal for the state to your your answer was that when i asked you if if acceptance of the quickly more for would have relieved any burden your answer was well there was a requirement that the trustee expressed her accepting the quitclaim offer would result in litigation over the issue of ownership and that we did argue in the briefs and that and the reason it would and i'm just filling in on the background of why we believe that that litigation over the if we spend another amount equal to that fight with the fight about the about the ownership issue and another amount equal to that to try and fight with texas euro gas we've used up almost all the money let's say however  hundred thousand dollars spread over one hundred fourteen million dollars the total claims is point zero eight seven seven of a return that means the million dollars of claims outside of texas zero have been splitting up eight hundred eighty seven dollars that's in consequential in consequential value in consequential benefit to those creditors now you say well look at the current look at the big creditors get the money  that's true but the code again encourages the trustee to limit land where she can and to defer to the views of the creditor reasonably expressed the fourth prong of the of the  fact i'm just curious before you finish your answer is there in this record any independent appraisal of what the real fair market value of this no leamy is i mean we have any concept or idea of how much internet she was not an investor so that if if the trustee held the clients she didn't have standing to pursue an arbitration in its arbitration and even if she did have standing money in the kitty and having to go through several layers of procedure to get there and spend millions of dollars to do it it was just impractical but the bigger the biggest problem fundamentally was she didn't have a forum that she could legitimately reach to pursue them so what she had while something that one part they wanted to abandon which is you know one of the reasons it's hard to discuss how we're going to sell these things when if we say we're going to sell whatever title we have we only have one better because the other party is not worth anything to them to buy them off us because then they're not an investor and they don't have standing with first the actually it is a present matter was to have a transaction hundred fifty thousand dollars with so isn't i don't consider two hundred fifty thousand dollars in consequential well two hundred fifty thousand dollars if you don't have to litigate the texas comes with two prepackaged pieces of litigation and a hundred thirteen million dollar climb out there isn't consequential to trust the really if that was the only offer on the table and the trustee is looking at do i want to take two hundred fifty thousand dollars and fight with these two parties for the next three years i think is a very good chance she abandons that claim and takes zero four as opposed to pursuing it but the and i pod or that i'm overtime but let me just now give you the press because reach of this court to review that is pretty short because you've got to look at trustees business judgment the courts discretion and where the court applied the appropriate standard cited appropriate case law for it and made  thank you your honor in terms of the record argument as we go when we've tried to limit it to that and i think the court need to carefully look at whether the statutory requirements were met here and they were not this matter to the trustee hell that money gets divided up amongst the creditors that's not her issue now it may be make her feel better it looks better if she can say all right these ten percent back right a one percent tax issue is how in and how much goes out and so that it's it's a little bit distracting to talk about the t g claim in that in that format would also ask the court to consider our legal argument that we were entitled to litigate that first that that should have been that our objection to the claim which we were happy to take on that we should have been allowed to do that before the trustees said this is too burdensome i'm just going to abandon a valuable