please the court the big issue involved in this case is the bankruptcy courts unprecedented decision to deny resolution of a fraudulent transfer claim in a bankruptcy case in order to facilitate a preposition creditors pursuit of that claim outside of the bankruptcy court for its own individual benefit there's five there's three principles of law in a circuit that's been recognized in a circuit beyond that  conflict with the bankruptcy courts outcome and those for reasons why the bankruptcy court should not have proceeded in this matter first if circuit has recognized that the bankruptcy code and related federal statutes comprehensive provide for the administration of fraudulent transfer claims in a bankruptcy case this court has recognized in both the nebraska and versus state bank cases that a chapter seven trustee or a chapter eleven better than possessions rights and avoidance actions are exclusive the bankruptcy court did not address why it would deny mr whately approach to resolving the transfer claims in this bankruptcy under the nebraska state bank v jones case the eighth circuit recognized that including my thing most recently the eraser services case indicated that a creditor pursuing an avoidance action means derivative standing with in the bankruptcy case and of course in the nebraska state bank case th creditor involved have been trying to pursue that action on its own accord not for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate not for the case with nebraska state bank and its progeny do not recognize is that a creditor can pursue a fraudulent transfer claim on its own accord in this case the bankruptcy court in its order in denying the settlement of the avoidance claim an issue while lar will be paid under the plan in full on it's allowed claim larry its interests are broader than the confines of this case and this plan and this plan prejudices those interests the interest that the claim in the bankruptcy case so i could then continue pursuing appellant barber weekly beyond the bankruptcy case even though lariats allowed claim in the bankruptcy cases was paid in full because of landlord bank case and its progeny that is one ground that requires reversal of the bankruptcy court orders in this case the second reason requiring reversal the bankruptcy court determined that recovering any transferred property through the fraudulent transfer action in bankruptcy case would not benefit the estate i want to just quote again from the order to make clear the bankruptcy court  in paragraph twenty nine the infusion of cash into an estate typically results in a benefit to the estate but this is not a typical case in a cash infusion such as proposed here does not always significant signify such a benefit here there is no benefit the estate the benefit is to barbara wigley alone what the bankruptcy court had did in that decision was wrongfully misapply section five fifty of the bankruptcy code the bankruptcy code under section five fifty gives a court has been recognized to give a court a limited ability to deny processing a fraudulent transfer claims in a bankruptcy case this this court recognized in the decisions necker vs d l c however that that limitation is very limited in style necker this court recognized that the benefit of the a state test only measured whether or not a recovery of a fraudulent new transferred asset would augment the estate whether it would increase the assets of the estate install necker the court expressly recognized that there is no relevancy whether or not the transfer actually increases distribute distribution to a state creditors in fact if side benefit of the estate only refers to the calculation of the property available when collected in the state creditors or on the other side of the in this case when the bankruptcy court decided that larry its interests were per paramount in deciding that it would not administer the fraudulent transfer property the bankruptcy court added added a tast to section five fifty and added language to section five fifty that's not in there and has already been rejected by this court there is no provision in the code to factor creditors pre partition interest in the claim when assessing a benefit of the state second ground where the bankruptcy court erred as early as a matter of law in denying the settlement and administration of this project we transfer claim a third error as a matter of law there is a line of cases both both in this circuit and elsewhere where in fact there are instances where bankruptcy courts deny processing of fraudulent transfer claims because they do not benefit the estate one case i worked on the hacker case which only reached the the client to process in avoidance claim where the property involved was fully encumbered with valid mortgages thus there was no benefit to avoiding the interest in bringing it into the state because the mortgages would need to be paid and there parading are you going to address the standing question i will go directly to the standing issue your honor the standing issue in this case is distinct from the opportunity finance case it is because we don't have a situation where direct harm is several levels removed the bankruptcy court decided in that language i previously cited to you that lariat has rights in this claim beyond the bankruptcy case so how how will this how is your client aggrieved party is directly harmed by the bankruptcy courts recitation of these claims because either they are settled in the bankruptcy case and she keeps the property that she holds the spell funds that were transferred to her prepare titian or if the bankruptcy co issue before the bankruptcy court it was an opportunity finance involved this consolidation order where the the real issue in that case the direct issue was a mystery in the state certain parties complained because the ruling of substantive consolidation may have impaired certain rights they would have in future bankruptcy litigation this case is distinct because the court had arguments that financial interest it increases her burdens beyond the bankruptcy case and one other observation i'd like to make a standing but the legal issue of lariats sort of residual rights that  it is a federal issue in the first instance is appropriate for the bankruptcy courts and related federal courts of review to first define the scope of federal supremacy over the fraudulent transfer litigation  is someone who dealt with mr whately pre partition she received a transfer from him that she would like to keep there's been no such other than i mean yes this transfer was avoided in state court but there hasn't been a sense that these parties want to dissolve this transfer have any intent to dissolve this transfer arguably she is a creditor she was schedule as a creditor in this case as well i'm going to cede the rest of my time for about thing here e but before that i could provide an editorial i think the weeklies conduct overall in this case is rewrites the book on what's pa mr weekley was held liable for over two point two million dollars in damages committed according to state court and actually fraudulent transfer brought a separate action before a state court judge collaterally attacking the original judgment was thrown out summarily on that one and at the end of the day we have a seven hundred eighty eight the the debtor said he didn't need the money that's that was the key a key factor in the judge constantine's decision testifies i will do it need this money to fund my plan just in implication is i just want to help out my wife while i'm helping out myself here but i want to before i get to that i want to get to the standing issue  there's a difference between recognized being recognized as an interested party and eleven or nine of the bankruptcy court which basically says anybody can show up and go podium and having standing to appeal that's been long recognized in order to determine whether mrs wigley has standing in this case basically three questions need to be answered for a question of a one did judge constantine do anything to diminish mrs weekly's property clear answer no number two did judge constantine do anything to increase mrs weekly's burden they did not she faced the same issue before and after bankruptcy and i think some courts have put it she lost no rights she was merely being obligated to exercise them in another form and of course that's the third question did did they did the bankruptcy court anyway impair mrs weekly's rights no they did not these cases on all fours away with the majority but with the dissent an opportunity finance in the sense that first of all i think opportunity clearly governs but even if judged by his dissent it provided the rule of decision here or in that case mrs whately would still lack standing there is no procedural or any other sort of impediment that has been put in front of mrs mrs wigley so i don't know what more can be said about it three questions three answers no standing case dismissed that's our that's our view on that i can before i move on to to the underlying issue i would take any questions on that or take them whenever you wish to ask them  nine f thirty eight ninety eight page nine zero three court asked of made a very interesting statement you could just simply change the name and it would be a statement about this case what the a circuit said was while a direct benefit to the higher standards themselves  crystal clear and the direct benefit that was accrue to the estate is quite difficult to convey to discern let me restate that with a different name in it while a direct benefit to the weeklies themselves is crystal clear and you direct benefits that would accrue to a bankruptcy estate is quite difficult to discern the a circuit i think your colleagues on that were being a bit wryly are what they're saying is there was no benefit to the estate and that was that they had i think dictated the holding the again to repeat myself to some extent but to review the reasons why judge costin came to the correct result on the merits of number one debtor testified under oath he didn't need the money to fund his plan nicked in this bankruptcy case and the judge correctly concluded that the settlement would only benefit mrs whately as a litigation defendant arm only lariat the debtor acknowledged under his view of the facts he couldn't even plead a fraudulent transfer case how can he settle a fraudulent transfer case in a bankruptcy when he can't even plead it he agrees that aggressively as early as fully solvent at the time there's no way there's no constructive fragile transfer that he can allege and certainly made no effort to allege that he and his wife and gage an actual fraud which would be the other basis for doing that he simply could not bring a case to avoid the fries on transfer and in fact did not bring a case and is trying to fashion a bankruptcy style relief for non debtors first for himself in a couple of instances and then for mrs wakely quite rightly rejected that and the question which is stands for the basic proposition that bankruptcy courts you know the courts of equity they can't depart from the statutes so i just wind up with my initial comment in the case this whole scenario just rewrites the whole book on  your honor and one last point on standing i'd like to make the difference between this case and a lot of other cases where the courts have denied appellate standing is this bankruptcy court to find and stated what the rights of the parties would be when the bankruptcy was over it was in a lot of the other cases including opportunity finance involved litigation bankruptcy administration issues either before midstream with adversary proceeding litigation in the bankruptcy case and issues like the appointment of a trustee may have some indirect impact on a big group see case but as this court noted an opportunity finance are several steps removed from actual harm this this the bankruptcy court in this case the dollar of its federally allowed claim one other point on that i think it's important to talk about the reversionary interest in this district circuit there's been a lot of litigation and derivative standing the creditors right to bring it why would we be seeing all this derivative standing with a geisha and on the eve of that two year deadline that was the in racing services case i believe the motion for derivative standing was brought shortly before the the trustees deadline to do so would y provide for and intend that fraudulently transfer claims are in mr in this case in bankruptcy cases those laws should be applied in this case just as lariat benefited under state law and having a future judgment entered for ten years on the lease that allowed it to have a point two million dollars judgment on a claim that at the time was only two hundred forty five thousand dollars delinquent lariat benefited from state laws and procedures that allowed it to get that judgment all we ask for an escape from this in this bankruptcy case is that we get the laws applied as we would expect and those include the landlord cap which the bankruptcy court did apply but then the bankruptcy court decided it would not apply the typical fraudulent transfer administration rules so as to leave larry something a little extra in this case the bankruptcy court acknowledges this in paragraphs eighteen through twenty four no it was applying the equitable principle of too much meaning that it would find mr whately file the case in good faith so when dismissed the case that it would apply the lamb or cap but it wouldn't apply the fraudulent transfer laws as written so as to give larry something a little extra it's not the bankruptcy court duty or obligation or even to do so in fairness to rewrite the plain language of the bankruptcy code to rebalance the part interests congress has decided the party's interests and in this case the debtor and mrs wigley simply followed those laws the constitutes a malfunction of the bankruptcy process of such claims are not administered in the bankruptcy case and if the bankruptcy court consciously barzee the administration of such claims as it did here it constitutes reversible error under any standard the latter the latter occurred in this case to the direct financial injury of the who was denied resolution of these claims and should not be continuing to face such claims after her husband's bankruptcy case has successfully concluded in a fully paid chapter eleven reorganization plan the decision should be reversed and remanded for the bankruptcy court to resolve the administration of this claim but within the parameters of the code normally section five fifty thank you thank you movement court thanks both counsel for your argument to the court this morning and will take your