we talking about exclusive jurisdiction or are we talking about concurrent jurisdiction ok now now let me stop you there ok now you know that reminds me of sometimes people like you know they try to make this pen into an elephant it's just a bit hard to do but lawyers will always get me that's with lawyers try to do you know when it matters in the bankruptcy court you know before i put on this robe i was just like you i'm out there practice along i was in the bankruptcy court many many way i mean there you know no one got approval here for this case to go to the circuit court that might have been very simple a little motion get approval by but ok that wasn't done here but the question but the question is you know is ferrous jurisdiction goes yes we have concurrent jurisdiction to hear legal malpractise cases and they could hear it right but when the bankruptcy court says that they retain jurisdiction over any litigation that that means that that it's in their purview well judge and berger got it exactly right when he said exclusive is not a constitution it does say that but it didn't mean that it can't mean that i have no power to do that i could not do that so  view it's no different than if the legislature passes an unconstitutional step and it may mean exactly what everybody says but if this port were to say this section does unconstitutional then we don't just say well legislature still passed it the governor still signed it so we're going to go on and force it even though it's unconstitutional we say means what it says but what it says is on pounds and i don't know that that's an issue and as well we think that it is because it exclusive jurisdiction means exclusive jurisdiction and that's the only way you can say we had to go to the bankruptcy court the only way you can say we had to is if exclusive means exclusive it and we're stuck supports which proposition a proposition that when a plan says that the bankruptcy court is going to retain jurisdiction over litigation at that here it don't mean you have to go to bankruptcy court kind of litigation that does not have to be brought in the bankruptcy misplacing did not have to be brought into bankruptcy or that things were just as they would have been if the plane had been entirely signed but if the bankruptcy judge agreed with j goldberg he said judge goldberg correctly read exclusive to mean explicit but then when on to say that says never wait a minute show i was lying that if we read it that way it's unconstitutional so we can't can force even though it's fair even though i put it in an order i can't do that we can't do that i cannot make the plaintiffs filed this case in front of me going to could have chosen to file this case in front  burger and ask him for permission to go to the state court i don't think that is an issue indicates what they're saying is we had no choice but to violate in the bankruptcy court not that we just needed to go to him and get  right right up the street everybody's here in chicago says it concerns the conduct of illinois lawyers there's no question that the case along severe and should be filed here the only question is is there some reason why we prior are simply issues of whether or not the pleading is adequate and and please enough facts those are our issues in in our opinion that this court should defer to the circuit court because if there aren't enough facts to say that entrenched line and then say in the federal court that we haven't played enough facts but then he gave us leave to amend we did a math and we put in more facts so if there are enough facts moment i think you need to exist understand exactly what happened here and why it to understand out that he laid out this plan of reorganization was set up like almost all plans these days although i'm not really a bankruptcy lawyer but the bankruptcy lawyers tell me that they still a liquid eating plan is set up with a liquidating trust where basically all of the assets including any claims that the bankruptcy estate has appointed this liquidating trust little practice because everybody was worried that that that would be read if the legal malpractise claims were transferred into that trust as an improper assignment the legal malpractise claims that would be point that's why the plan was written to leave those claims with are not transfer them in to the liquidating trust they were left with are and that's also why why in the ordinary course of things our plan would have just gone out of existence as a corporate entity it's state of the of the l l c he stayed alive post confirmation to again try and avoid any argument that there was an improper assignment of legal person authorized by the us code to prosecute claims so he had backed off and he also technically was the manager of the l l c r fund which stayed in existence soley so that this case could be prosecuted without an argument that it's been improperly site so he technically had all three of those titles however mr abrams was hurt it was not an operating business it was just a liquidation or the administrator or whoever it is we think he had a perfect right to file in his own name or somebody could come for the bankruptcy court to get bankruptcy judge to make a decision as to the right place it would be say well that's kind of improper but the problem we had at that point in time was judge goldberg's neutral was i have no jurisdiction to hear this case so if in fact he doesn't think he has jurisdiction can he in fact give us leave to amend the complaint to put her there which is why procedurally we help the only way we could do this is make a motion to reconsider which of the main purpose of which was to get a ruling from the bankruptcy court interpret in the plan and then let judge over him that way and and set it up that way to preserve up but i think on the on the main question of or before the court i think that judge when the burghers opinion from the bankruptcy court says it better than i and i ever could which is that this plan was set up to reserve jurisdiction the whole idea between these behind these retention jurisdiction provisions just so the court understands  bankruptcy practitioners about how much jurisdiction the bankruptcies is court keeps after a plane is compound and so they always put these provisions in a plan the idea being he is much  we can and they're written as a lawyer so want to do was broadly as we can to keep as much jurisdiction in this one was overwritten a little bit but the idea is to keep as much jurisdiction so what do you think that phrase means retain jurisdiction over any litigation i mean what does that mean well it i mean it's clear now the political but you tell me what you think i think he didn't retain jurisdiction over any litigation that the that nico meet he had jurisdiction to hear and that's i think when he changed the plan is what he said it is what i meant to do was say to the extent i have jurisdiction to keep jurisdiction over lifted litigation i'm keeping ok and so that's why i think there was no question that we could be have filed this case in front of judge glenda berger in the bankruptcy court as we in fact did and everybody knows about it after trickle ruled we could but we did burke or any other court of the jurisdiction that they otherwise would have to hear a claim that we could properly file in front of that court so because we have a right i have this case here i think there's say that i'm taking the jurisdiction away from the state court judge of a case that's properly for you and your stiction i am retaining jurisdiction to file here and it's like any other case lots of cases in the world i'm sure you protection if they feel the plaintiff filed it in the wrong place they have a venue or they have whatever other are commits they can make that it's not the right place but at least initially it's your choice to file a lawsuit where the plaintiff wants the pilot we had a choice here we could have gone to the bankruptcy court we could have gone to the circuit court of cook county we chose to go to the circuit court of cook county over said you can't i can't hear the case we think that was wrong we think he he could hear the case judge when the burger said if you're saying i took your power to hear in a way he didn't say i didn't need to and i can't i'm so inspired as he's concerned and i think he's absolutely right about th simple question here is how could judge hold or have committed error when all he did was to read the plain language of the plan that this liquidating trustees  jurisdiction provision is only purposed for protecting the banker's court's jurisdiction that's what counsel try to explain but the idea here is that you put these provisions in a plan to make sure that the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction doesn't diminish the that that or that theory cannot be correct if you look at the plain language of section nine point one three and the reason for that is because if you look at the section right above the was correct about that point this is this is it remains that it has lots of extra steps in the sense that if the bank's court has to approve the plan and people have to vote on it  procedures that you have to go through now does that mean that this is this is on like a contract no not at all does that mean that this trustee didn't agree under this plan provision to suit the bankruptcy court absolutely not this was an agreement by the trustee to sue in the bankers that's that is the way the judge goldberg read this provision and it was appropriate and correct correct under the cases that we cited discovered i believe that there is a difference and then make a fair point about this that it's not a contract in the sense that she got two private parties with offer acceptance consideration all the things that we learned about think about what makes  doesn't mean however that this isn't in forcible agreement about where litigation should be hearing in determining litigation what you're telling me that there could be an enforceable agreement that's not a country yes it should be enforced like the way it will work but wait a minute you see it led force like a country you know to me there's a contract and then you know an agreement to me is a contract you know i don't know that there's anything in between track and agreement as a contract i don't know what this is what you're talking about i've never heard of such thing quoted here are what it what it is is i don't i don't get wrapped up in terms of whether it's he said it and this is the reason i used the word agreement that was the word he said you made an agreement you committed to file this case in the bankruptcy court and so in that way this provision is no more it is no different than the kinds of agreements that you see all the time where people say look i have the option to file a case in illinois and indiana maybe i can also file in delaware we're going to agree that almost several case if this was a situation where the bankruptcy court once available to if they couldn't file a court i might agree then that would be a problem then you might you might have a situation in this circumstance this provision why so we think the judge told her was correct in all respects on that front and that the trustee can now say he here or that he was incorrect simply by virtue address that and i think that that's a very very important point because one of the the trust is trying to do here is to have the the best of both worlds and that's the problem and the reason that this really matters plans why would they do that if the debtor wasn't going to be the party that needed to pursue these claims because the debtor own them and so what the trustee has done know i certainly could see why the appellant did do what he did for the benefit of his clients if you know it's true that a bankruptcy court could certainly hear a legal malpractise case legal malpractise case i don't know i tr discordance exactly the right place and they didn't do that and they didn't raise any of these other arguments and to go with the waiver point but yes to the the proper party the proper plan and also that the waiver principle in the cases that we cited is designed to protect it's certainly one thing to allow amendments for the interest of justice or for to allow somebody to be able to lead a cause of action that they couldn't otherwise believe which is what the cases that they've cited addressed it is a very different thing if you allow a party to roll the dice and say i'm going to stand on my argument and then come back later after they've lost and say i'll wait we can signing stated but it could never state the theory here is that the lawyers had a duty to warn heart one that it was going to enter into serious business deals there is no there is no the case just as well as the vacancy court could hear the case unless there's some exclusion in there that says we can't that's that's the basic bottom line point of our position i mean that's what you want to see right you have the jury the circuit court had jurisdiction unless read to deprive it of jurisdiction that is unconstitutional it could not deprive the bankruptcy court or the bankruptcy plan with a plan and i don't think i have to get into the word constitutional  the bankruptcy court had no authority if you want to say it that way to take away the jurisdiction of the circuit court well i'm not going to ever say that another court doesn't have authority for any well but the question is us not to take jurisdiction when we have to do that i don't think you can you have to speculate on whether or when or how a bankruptcy court could be in theory perhaps someday say i am making you file everything here in the in the bankruptcy court and i am not giving you permission not authorizing you and somehow or another committee new to filing everything in front of me ok whether or not there's some way the bankruptcy court could do something along those lines is not an issue i think that you folks after to address i think that all you have to address here is judge clifford's point which is in this instance this exclusive jurisdiction provision took away my power my capacity my authority whatever it is the two year this states and it did it could it is authority to give a felony defendant it will be good enough for you folks to say well sorry the lies the wide says we no longer have jurisdiction to give delany defendants trials therefore you know go back to the legislature tell them to do that he couldn't do that if they're arguing that's what he meant or that's what he tried then he can let me address for a second this contract issue because i think it it their analogy breaks down if you push it even just a little bit it was a contract and it wasn't who was it between us and and judge glenda berger the bankruptcy court was was those were the two parties who had the most say it was the back and it was not could have a six hundred page plan with thousands of provisions but until the bankruptcy judge says ok i'm adopting this plan and implementing it is meaningless it's not a contract it's just six hundred pages of paper it doesn't come language that is inapt or maybe could be misconstrued in there are language there is language in some of the cases that talk about it being a contract or using that kind of allergy but it is if for example your honor posed the council said something to the effect that that moving it to the process would be an improper assignment of the mine we don't concede that point certainly that was the purpose of trying to avoid that but we are conceding that it well because quite frankly as i said earlier your honor we have this problem that you'd go for it and said i don't have jurisdiction i can't hear this case so for us to have come in at that point and said well we want to go in turn order giving us leave amend when he has said i don't have jurisdiction over this case here we had a real problem with how that was going to work so we thought the best way to handle it was to put in our motion to reconsider that this is what we would want