honor steven wallace appearing for america's province of the united states college preparatory and thank you at least court doesn't have money can check us i represent thirty that are in this matter of the forgetting and the legal argument i'd like to review a there's property of the st louis estate do you agree with that yes ok great and then i see the nd would be hairs the would be bankruptcy court abuse its discretion position that the better sexual abuse claim never became an asset of the st louis bankruptcy by operation of law and i think all parties agreed that when in the courts make clear that federal courts may issue pro chunk orders to reflect the reality of what has occurred in the words of the supreme court those orders are not orwellian vehicle interest may be part of the state unless the future interest in the subject to the absolute discretion of another party that was the case debtor there was there's no in between in this case is there any well and i'm sure exactly what you're saying i think i think that it would be a an asset of the is the point that i'm trying to make is a bonus only exists once the employer decides some going to give out bonuses in this case the asset is an existing client made is not a a hope  have excluded or exempted this particular piece of property the debtors admissions that this is property of the estate notwithstanding it's clear that just on the law it is property of the estate  property as a bowling alley it will revert to me yes it's up to judge males discretion it's within his discretion whether or not he uses the property as a bowling alley but if he does it reverts to me i still have a revers interest even ever see even if it's ever so slight that is enough to surrender this property of the estate and it's quite unlike a bonus where as i think your honor pointed out the property doesn't even exist until the would require the court to in each instance with each particular piece of property that's abandoned make a determination as to when temporarily the property had been abandoned that would be a decidedly on workable rule because the court would be completely inundated with requests to determine when was this property at the end when was this property abandoned the rule is and it has been it's not been challenged that property is abandoned to the debtor as a as though it had never been property of the estate to begin with so it's abandoned effective as of the commencement of the case so on the on those issues or on a clearly this is property of the estate the test the supreme court has articulated i think which is by embodied in section five forty one is whether the interest is sufficiently rooted in the debtors pre bankruptcy past to drop into the estate here there's no question that is the case secondly judge  abuse his discretion in approving this resolution he methodically applied the four factors identified by the ace work circuit in the filed the complexity of the case the likelihood of success on the merits the ultimate these are allegations that date back some fifty years or nearly fifty years it's going to test the memory of witnesses from the early one thousand nine hundred and seventy s it will require expert testimony as to whether or not the debtor's the debtor recall is correct or whether or not it was when it was when the recall occurred if it ever occurred your honor creditors no one no one opposed opposed the settlement no creditors is your point about no creditors objecting quite frankly they wouldn't object with a sense that result and them getting paid in full it wouldn't and that's to say that's why it's important that the debtor did object because he's the only one left having an interest in that settlement if in fact your honor he has an interest in the settlement as this court is how the trustees duty runs to the runs to the creditors in the estate and not to the debtor certainly the debtor has a right to object if in fact there's a surplus in this in this case there is no surplus or if there is it's it's a de minimus surplus because of the administrative expenses and the claims that have been filed  and the test is in fact the interest of creditors creditor and as i indicated no creditors objected objected to the settlement and their interests are paramount in the analysis under low filed and under in determining under some rule might be nineteen whether or not the settlement is appropriate can you can you address the issue with regard to the motion to seal i will you invited the parties to submit documents under seal that he could consider a connection with his analysis of the size of the proposed settlement he ultimately determined he didn't need to do that and he said so in his opinion in fact there were on two instances the parties were before the court with what was essentially a substantial substantially the same settlement and so the so on two occasions that no more no less than two occasions the parties had an opportunity to brief to the facts and circumstances and the merits of the case and so i think it was appropriate for a judge run to have determined that he didn't need to see the documents under seal in order to evaluate whether or not th told until the memory returns so during the time of the two bankruptcies his failure to schedule it doesn't pass is completely innocent because he had no memory of it  and then this judge where again however he didn't he didn't go back and reopen his case and amanda until at least a couple of that i was had no sophisticated knowledge of the bankruptcy law knew in general there was some obligation to deal with these at some time but didn't know and i don't believe there is any time limit