please the court my name is alec ostrow and i represent the appellant gale killer lay down your honors this is a case about correcting an abuse of the us bankruptcy process that has allowed the trustee in bankruptcy here to place an ordinary litigant my client and in extreme procedural disadvantage by lifting the automatic stay the bankruptcy court permitted my client to be sued based on the same underlying transactions by two separate fiduciary in two current into two separate countries on three continents she has the extra burden of defending the same transactions multiple times and she is subjected to the risk of inconsistent judgments that he have the right to the state she's neither creditor nor code at or here i'm having difficulty with that it's not a right to the state that we're talking about your honor it's a question of whether she has the right not she should be her not put in place for her protection your honor i respectfully disagree the state applies to all entities one of the primary purposes of the bankruptcy stay proceedings and prevent the chaos of multiple proceedings could be all over the country in this case it's multiple countries one of the purposes of the stay and if it of of maintaining the bankruptcy estate and allowing it to be administered it's not concerned with whether or not non predators and non jagger's are encounter more or less litigation burtons respectfully i don't think that is the entirety of the purpose that may be a primary purpose but the automatic state applies to all entities all entities are entitled to rely on it all entities are entitled to the protection of it again the the the issue would be if the a particular defendant in a particular fraudulent conveyance case  the state has the exclusive right to bring this case if you lift the stay and allow all the creditors say there were hundreds of to bring the same lawsuit in all different parts of the country indeed all different parts of the world that would not promote the the the purpose of the bankruptcy code to prove to coordinate and centralize proceedings involving in a state that trustee or some number of creditors would bring that to the bankruptcy courts attention the problem your honor is that the trustee likes this state of affairs that the creditors like this state of affairs they like to be able to my client to impose extra burden to to put her at risk of inconsistent judgments and in particular this is a particularly obnoxious kind of risk because we have a a trustee in bankruptcy in the united states we have an official ass eny in ireland and neither is the agent of each other and they're bringing the say at the same essential a fraudulent transfer action that they may be after different properties located in different jurisdictions but it's based on the same underlying set of transfers between the debtor and the debtors wife the appellant my korean and the question is same transfers all over again my client on the other hand is the same person in both places so if she loses in ireland she's going to lose in connecticut and vice versa so these two different found and the district court found no error in that conclusion that the trustee in the official asked heinie work working cooperatively to coordinate proceedings in ireland and in the united states do you have any reason or is it reflected in the documents that that was accurate your honor all we have in the record is the say so of the trustee the official s n e has not made any statement in the record in the united states and we don't know what the extent of this cooperation is we don't know if it's reduced to an agreement and if it's been reduced to an agreement we don't know what this agreement says because nobody's ever seen it not no but is there any reason to doubt this representations made to the court your honor the representations are very very general we don't know the extent of the cooperation we don't know the contours we don't know what it consists of and we don't know what areas they are allowed to disagree with each other i mean we have examples i mean this is not in the record but there are examples of the trustee and the official as any taking opposite views on a particular issue so we don't know the extent of the cooperation it's not as though there is some protocol that has been filed in both jurisdictions and approved by both courts we simply have a statement that says we've agreed to cooperate with each other and i have no doubt that as far as that statement goes it's true but we don't know what it means and we don't know when it could be reversed but that's the problem here your honor is it is particularly unfair to lift the automatic stay to allow an ordinary litigant in a fraudulent transfer case to be exposed to this kind of multilateral attack she has the right and we said we had a decision from the one nine hundred eighty s come catch and i don't know if you're familiar with it yes your honor why isn't it controlling here we were not looking to lift the state income coach that was a creditor of a creditor that was actually trying to lift the stay i think the right very different when you're trying to oppose what is proposed to be done to prefer you're neither a creditor or debt or you're not the party in interest and in the context of challenging talking about the parameters of the automatic stay but you say that's limited to context where  that the culinary interest in the bankruptcy case is not the sole ground for standing in bankruptcy and i think it's a mistake for the bankruptcy code court to have rested solely on the notion that the appellant doesn't and i think both the analysis of the bankruptcy court in going through the the applicable factors the sonics factors from this court bankruptcy court completely misconceived the appropriate factors because lifting the state does not result in a complete resolution of the case it does not result in judicial economy it does not result in fairness the parties weren't ready for trial in the other jurisdiction all these factors were misconstrued misconstrued and misconceived by the bankruptcy court and the district courts affirm and didn't make it any better because all the district court said was if the trustee in the creditors like it that's good enough for me the bankruptcy trustee with the support of ninety seven percent of the creditors of the bankruptcy estate judgeships finding rest and no error of law he made no clearly erroneous findings of fact in his decision to lift th was within the range of permissible to school decisions that is committed to his discretion the cause that was presented to the bankruptcy court was that cause existed to allow the irish high court and the irish official official asininity who is a government official in ireland to litigate the validity of transfers that occurred in ireland between two irish nationals that was structured under irish law where the witnesses to the transactions are because there are there will be years of litigation between now in the us and that's part of your adversary's argument that you the trustee would get a second bite at the apple if he would prevail in the irish action but by contrast she would be banned by an adverse decision against her in the irish action the trustee would just piggy back onto it and the argument is that that's not fair that argument is made but that argument rs dunn is a defendant in the united states mrs dunn no longer resides in the united states and the defendant money susceptible to collection by the trustee in the united states or into the zone as well see and one fifty one  twenty fourteen the their group c corps issued an order granting relief from state to ulster back an irish banking institution with the support of the chapter seven trustee as a result of that order the official as in he was appointed in ireland and mr dunne was adjudicated bankrupt in ireland mr dunne appealed his adjudication as a bankrupt in ireland to the irish supreme court and the irish supreme court affirmed his adjudication as a bankrupt and said he can be a bankruptcy debtor in ireland and a bankruptcy debt in the united states and the a very minimum the irish official as any should act in a role to assist the liquidation of assets in the us bankruptcy case since the us bankruptcy case in the irish bankruptcy case had the same creditors the point being your honor that if this core or the bankruptcy court said that the automatic stay was going to remain in effect we don't know whether the irish accords stopped doing what they are doing there now i've been involved in more than two years of litigation the litigation in ireland has been exploited to south africa where there has been an asset restraint and whether or not the official as any would stop performing his stanch authority duties under irish law because the united states bankruptcy court refusal of the automatic stay is a question of speculation and i think that that brings us to the standing question and that is whether or not mrs dunn has suffered a ery injury result of the bankruptcy courts who are three circuit courts have looked at the case of whether or not in order that causes a party to be subject to suit is sufficient to grant them standing under the bankruptcy case in chief first the southern district of new york in the old h p case said that a bankruptcy court order does not produce the direct and verse  necessary to pistole standing and appellate if the order is effect is merely to expose it to the risks of litigation the southern district new york cited the sixth circuit court of appeals in that case there was an order that granted standing to a committee of administrative claim holders to sue people the people that would subject of the suit wanted to appeal the or granting standing to the committee they were parties in the bankruptcy case they didn't have standing in travers insurance versus h k porter there was an order of the bankruptcy court allowing creditors to file claims which may result in litigation against travelers the fact that the bankruptcy court enter in order in the bankruptcy case that might cause travelers to be suited not give travel or standing in the ninth circuit in a case maybe most close to this stated that in order of the bankruptcy court allowing the trustee to a point a counsel to bring a lawsuit against the debtors wife did not grant the debtors wife standing in the bankruptcy case in chief in this particular case the order appeal from is an order lifting the automatic stay and the automatic stay according to this court is for the benefit of in some instances the debtor which is not implicated in this case but otherwise it is for the benefit of the state and it is the state itself that sought to lift the stay in this case with the support and at the urging of the vast majority of creditors in the case ninety seven percent of the creditors of the case because it is in the best interests of the estate to pursue the avoidance of transactions in ireland with irish witnesses and irish documents in an irish court with an irish official as an aide to the extent mrs dunn claims she may be prejudice because of some discovery or other issues that may arise in either piece of underlying litigation she has all the rights to appear in those litigations and is currently doing that in the high court of ireland she is currently doing that in the united states bankruptcy court both of those courts currently have under consideration claims made by mrs dunn with regard to  discovery in the sharing of information between the chapter seven trustee the united states and the official in ireland and the courts will work their way through those issues in the underlying litigation where it is not appropriate by an adverse decision a year in an abusive discretion standard i mean i and i think you still have to address the question of standing still want to when you focus the i mean make argument the focus on in terms of those two questions how does your client have standing and then how is this an abuse of discretion we're not we're not here on to novo review of whether to lift the stay under stood your hon she she has standing because she is being attacked and she has standing to defend herself the same way that the criminal defendant in the bong case in front of the supreme court had the ability to argue the tenth amendment even though she wasn't a state it's the same as in this court's case in s c c against miller in which was an asset freeze against a bunch of defendants including a debtor and the debtors relatives who like mrs dunn in this case were neither debtors trustees creditors and they had standing work it was they were allowed to address the merits of whether the asset freeze by the f c c was invalid as a violation of the automatic stay this court decided that case on the merits but this court did not say that these  relatives of the dead are these non debtors these non creditors did lacked standing to contest the automatic stay they said the automatic stay blocked the s e c from an asset freeze on property that affected them this court had no difficulty addressing the merits they lost on the merits but this court addressed the merits and since standing is after all a fundamental jurisdictional issue then the court essentially sub three three examples in the main brief of situations where it's recognized that people who don't have peculiar interests in bankruptcy cases have standing if someone is proposed to be designated as a responsible person so you know who is going to be it for the debtor somebody is selected by the trustees and you you're going to be the debtor that person has standing to resist that designat their interest is the b s assignment here you client's interest is peculiar and so to that extent i'm not sure how you can establish standing unless you can say that the stay or the lifting of the stain stay directly in adversely effects you p q nearly the argument that your adversary just made is it doesn't affect you directly because you could go to ireland and win and so so that's their argument tell me why that's that's not the way we should look at it you shouldn't look at it that way your honor because the only reason that the that as far as american law is concerned that the official ason e has any right to pursue a fraudulent transfer action is that the state has been lifted because the fraudulent transfer actions belong exclusively to the trustee unless and until the bankruptcy court lifts the stay and allows somebody else to bring that that's the trustees concern and indeed the first circuit thinks that only a trustee can seek to enforce or complain about the automatic state but even if we assume that that's not the limit of it your client has no right to the state your honor i think my client has the right to have the state respected since she's back down by the automatic stay just as he doesn't think it's the best way to administer the bankruptcy state precisely your honor because the trustee just doesn't have the right to say i like this state of affairs therefore this is the state of affairs that will be especially when it puts my client at a procedural disadvantage litigating the two continents and being subjected to the risk of inconsistent results why don't you  us why you think the bankruptcy court used it's just rushing you on to this court has set forth the factors to be considered in lifting the stay the sign x factors and i we think that the bankruptcy court just clearly got them wrong as a matter of law or as a matter of fact now there was no evidentiary hearing below so the question is whether there was any actual basis for factual finding but the notion that that by lifting the stay you get a complete resolution of the underlying dispute is clearly erroneous the notion that by lifting the state you have judicial economy is clearly erroneous the notion that by lifting the stay that you have a balance of harms that tips decidedly in favor of the trustee is clearly erroneous these are the important factors and these are the ones that the bankruptcy court precisely got and that's why on an