paragraph nine it states that the respondents agree and that's heil to not take any action or make or permit any public statement creating the impression that this war is without actual basis so he can deny liability all he wants but that does not preclude or even diminish the fact or in any way shape or form that this order was based on a factual basis in fact in their paragraphs fourteen that they fractal basis he is record barred from selling securities without a license to selling securities or or admitting or mint or material facts which is the fraud involved that he didn't or engage in conduct that would be fraud fraudulent or deceitful so basically he comes under a nine thousand a little eye that he committed securities violations and that he committed fraud in the sale there of so he falls squarely within the  language itself the intent of the statute that that securities laws violations would be non dischargeable it is a very broad and is been interpreted to be broad not a narrow interpretation as the other exceptions are so your brief phrase the whole bunch issues yes ma'am tell us what you think is your best argument what do you rely on the best argument is that this is a different transaction that took place three years before the second transaction the first transaction of this case took place in two thousand and four the second transaction that was involved with the twenty ten case took place in two thousand and seven to two thousand and seven case was strictly the valuation points and what they were worth to transfer the funds from properties to j f will be and this case the this this was the original sales of the securities of properties themselves back in two thousand  and it was the basically that they were unsecured i mean not here but they were unregistered they were not exempt they were and that mr howe himself was not a licensed broker and authorized to sell these securities they because the two sections have different requirements different elements different damages they're completely different they're independent from each other to say that you will lose on one is you could have different counts and you could lose on one count but still win another game we just separated into two there is no bar from actually bringing it in any time there were cases where people brought their cases twenty years after the bankruptcy was over and there is no problem with that whatsoever inquire into the true nature of the debt the case was pretty clear that the the the bankruptcy court is required as a duty to focus on the conduct in which the debt originally rose to the debt originally rose back in two thousand and four and what they a e defined for us to use the debt would be the investments that both of the point just made to the defendant on investing in his business properties that would be the debt and you believe that th staff was by the consent order yes or how it will be part a your clients are not even mentioned in their in any way it offers no award for them no judgment no dollar amount that is correct that they're not mentioned because the state of obviously doesn't apply to the other entities well that's not true they needed the complete cover sheet is only a one page they don't give you a lot of space and it's only a room for one person to fill out their information but i'm not talking about that sheet which wasn't part of the record i'm talking about the consent order itself well it still just refers to the general m r it does it refers to that person as a fifty five year old individual but i and elsewhere in my brief i explained that it shows that or khan was it couldn't have been excluded because a refers to all of things that were khan was participating in that the consent or you're assuming that the missouri securities commission knew that otherwise whereas i mean that it didn't well let's get to the some part b issue to me that's the more problematic one from your standpoint i guess we're sort of on that note how does this debt result from the order when your clients are not mentioned other than mr conway says that any order consent order and so on and so forth and i i says that any amount for a judgment order or settlement or something like that if you require to have a judgment amount than i i and doesn't matter additionally the state statute provides for a private cause of action if you require that they consent order has to have a judgment in the private cause of action also becomes a purpose that doesn't need to be there i don't see how that follows we're talking about two different things one whether there's a claim and second whether it meets the requirements of five twenty three eighty nine and in one thousand well since there doesn't require i had a damages in i i you don't need it in i wish doesn't require it just as any order or consent or so any means any but there's got to be some sort of causal connection does or not between the order in the claim that's what results from means and that's where the claimants come from they file their recall saying that i don't recall the facts of course i'm sorry as for the reaction i think the reaction is clear that the because they use a m r which means missouri resident in ohio they use an o r and in some of the cases we had several cases where the cease and desist order was a fifteen different complaints none of them were listed and none of them or identified in any way but all of them had the right to have their dead not on discharge so that was plenty of cases saying that you don't have identify the people in the consent order for that to be effective we know who the complaints are and we and there was never a question during the in motion dismissed both or con and mr conway himself or both complains that was never an we something that was once a response to their argument that the nineteenth not satisfied by the consent order because there were no admissions and no determinations made it was merely a settlement and that the tillis case that they cited seems to be one of the primary ones that says that what's your response to that argument well the lack of admission is like i said when i first opened up is not bearing on whether the there is a basis for the state of missouri to find that he violated securities laws in fact in paragraph nine the consent order of specifically says that the respondent shall not deny that these are based on factual  know how does that relate to our proceeding maybe that means he's in breach of that and is in the mccann mission to do something i don't think the commission enforces these motions or these orders whatsoever except for the damages part and they you know so if they were to actually find him or something like that this is up to that this just says that he agrees not to do that i don't think there is a penalty against it i don't know i don't but it certainly tells him and he signed it with that provision in there he agreed to not there was a motion for relief from judgment was filed about three hundred sixty four days after the interim just read states judge judgement so does that case anything to do with this when it absolutely judged you know when it gets to gets to causation this is the crux of what judge rendering hit upon water on several different occasions causation has nothing to do with a one thousand and you know you absolutely does if you look at trade acts and if you look at a case it was decided last week in fact judge judge bear of the northern district of  ed by the complaint but didn't the first case only deal with the second set of representations dealing with how many points needed to be or how much money to be paid for a point in this new venture no it did not it we're you sure that i'm sure in the reason why is because if you look at that first case you'll note that the talks about the intervening action would cost a lot if that intervening action would have been something related to the first transaction the judge was state registered and was no exemption and the bottom right that's absolutely true there's no representation that has to be made and there's no cause elements in terms of reliance upon the representation reliance is not necessary correct however that's not five twenty three nineteen you need some causation you need a four element you need the results from element we're not talking about what it takes under the missouri secretary of state missouri law to hold one liable i'm sure we are because predicate for the for the a finding it's the predicate for the a finding under four but it still has there still has to be a dead arising for the violation itself which is not the case here if you look at that if you look at a state in those states that these were facts and law for the sole purpose of settling and there's been at least a couple of cases which of which we indicate in our brief say that that takes it out of the realm of ratio cada collateral stoppel and an actual finding question here is legally whether or not the consent order satisfies the four element and the results from elephant which it satisfies neither it also is a question of whether mr conway has any standing because mr conway is the only party who  and it couldn't have made a finding that he had any nineteen claim because only a two claim was in front of them only a two with a certainly the a one thousand could have been a god claim could have been in front of them but it wasn't you're if you're asking us to find the answer could actually determine that that there was no claim i do not occasions to the court and of the court of appeals to demonstrate that the q any interest and failed in that regard so if he doesn't have a human error interest in the outcome of the litigation in my opinion i interpret that as having no claim or no doubt otherwise he w except that the in one thousand wasn't in front of the courts at that time wasn't now wasn't judged let's talk about that the a one thousand claim should have been in front of the front of the court that time however how how could it have been because they were aware that there was a stale of some sort of security  as you can tell by the transcript and the two thousand and ten adversary proceeding they very well could have raised as a second count a nineteen and had that happened we could have gone in one or two directions mr conway would like the court to under ron tart's clear that it can be this tribunals that decides that claim so we could have gone into either one of two directions here with jobs or at states we could have the plaintiffs could have alleged a one thousand asked for relief from stay to go see missouri secretary of state and have the missouri secretary of state make their findings at that point time the court could have come back to the office or proceed to try to do that time they chose not to ever bring up a nineteen y that's not the case i don't understand but that claim certainly was around back in two thousand and ten and twenty nine to two thousand and nine when the bankruptcy case was filed the suit so that was a good argument as to why they should have brought it up but what why are they precluded from bringing it up in a separate action race to cut out because they should have brought it up and that's that's another was one of the seven bases for the dismissal under twelve the sex so you believe it was a mandatory correctly they did bring a very strict and we did we did in fact we focused most of our brief on race judicata quite frankly the the court went in their own direction and did a lot more focus on the four and the result from where we were court and the supreme court has a common theme for us bankruptcy lawyers read the statute before you come visit us if it's clear and unambiguous it's clear and unambiguous whether it be than a tourney can't be compensated for services rendered from  the factual predicate for case number one judge threw out state's case was the what i'll call the second representations the second set of representations involved how much it cost to invest and in this new entity the first set of representations was the initial investment which i think is what council's arguing is involved in a nineteen case and i don't think the initial investment was or tell me if i'm wrong please but the initial investment was not addressed by judge surat states was it was addressed in the fine of the  fact the it was not just as i want to of the fraud we started because it was tried we started with the very beginning of the relationship by how conway and heil met one another how the initial vestment came about what happened partners and what happened that's what's going on but the representations the misrepresentations or the frog or whatever was being tried in that case was not the initial investment was it it was that was actually not the the allegation the complaint but between these these two parties why would why there's no reason why the initial investment could not and most certainly should not have been litigated in connection with the day long trial we spent in two thousand  on the two thousand and ten adversarial proceeding certainly these all arose as judge rendell determined these all arose out of the same transactions occurrences so it was it was the initial investment in how partners which ultimately was partially flip bankruptcy court but i and i think that's actually very good point i think quite frankly had they not ever filed an adversary proceeding all they did was go to the missouri exchange secretary state and they got their ruling and came back with a nineteen i think the now that having been said they still wouldn't satisfy the four or the results from element so they still look back to i want to before you run out of time ask you to respond to his argument that your interpretation of requiring something by way of a judgment or award renders a portion of and that but you're also arguing there has to be something like an award or a judgment on behalf of his client and he says that if you require that then you make one surplusage because three specifically refers to a damage award you still have to satisfy the four in the result from argument so if if there was a finding if this was tried and there was a finding that mr conway was damaged in the amount of seventy one thousand five hundred dollars as a result of guessing is not a basis for it of defense is not a basis for dismissing a case we could have taken the deposition of the secretary of state's office they could explain their consent order and they can explain who was actually the complaints they can to explain why there's a rejection involved same thing with speculation is basically doesn't come a total offense if the trade acts case as a result from i do remember the lunsford case from the eleventh circuit and they go into a very long dissertation of what the results from  explains and it's basically they come down to the is it doesn't require further action on the back half of the debtor to become a liable under a nineteen it's not eight and a further requirement that he has to do something predicts the same something different or saying something different than one's word is disagreement there's a split and speaking of splits saying that we need to read the statute is disingenuous because if there is a split with these judges who can generic are genders at this point of the basically that so basically there's a and there's a reason to doubt it i would say one way and the other person says yes way but we can disagree but that's why there is a split because there's some there is a disagreement executing provisions of destructibility my clients that have to follow any lawsuit they could just go into state court they could get a judgment and they could start collecting not based on the right of ok but this argument is that since you did choose to go into the bankruptcy court and you raised the discharge billeted issue that you were obligated to raise all your discharge when he climbs and that time well it's a different transaction a different time with different damages were different all the facts and were in play before then there's a continuity of fac look like it is just one transaction but it is not but in order to explain the entire case you end up getting into all the facts but mr eggman was very familiar with the facts and he was sharp enough and he knows bankruptcy long enough that he followed an objection and it was sustained requiring a state or or an out of bankruptcy court order as opposed to allowing the bankruptcy court to make that decision and in the case in arkansas which i don't know the name they actually required an out of court or out of bankruptcy court order doesn't apply because you can win some and you can even if they have brought their case at that time we got a loss on a two and one on a nineteen in fact in some cases like sado they won on both amount of time can i finish you can finish your it doesn't matter anymore because we're giving you everything you want in a team that is the equivalent of losing on the other one so i don't think judicata would apply even if we could have brought the case back then but it certainly doesn't apply because we weren't required to in the cases also say that too  thank you for your time judges