notice of an adverse cling to the ass so in other words if a purchaser knows of an adverse claim to nasa before they purchase it there is no statutory move this in the sale can be reviewed and the counsel for discovery communications made an appearance at the hearing and were the objections to the sale were arc and that's what's a tab and what were those objections i mean how did obvious so that what we have to decide yes yes yes it is you know that's what we have to decide and if we decide if we decide against you on that point then that clears the route for the validity of the sale constitutionality of three sixty three m itself that may it may not be good law because if a an asset can is sold and it's not state that's best the judicial power of the united states s that it decided that three sixty three m did not apply because the debtors in that case had had that's those of the exact same issues that we've got today is that is that where our room that there is no statutory moodiness because discovery had notice of an adverse claim about five was done and therefore this on appeal can reverse can reverse that order and say ok let's talk about your situation and in my situation your honor  appealing and from appearing in the bankruptcy court and they sort of you know vacated not it's not it's not been vacated it's not been vacated because the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to vacate it because it's on appeal that's that's the problem that we've got with it and then we've got mr barron waving waving the bar order around saying well  sanctioned by the bankruptcy court i don't have to pay him look at look at have have batting was in the bankruptcy court and so i'm asking this court to to either vacate that order you out of me help me out a little bit  either vacate the order or send it back to the bankruptcy court with instructions to vacate the order one of the two and and that's that's the problem it's a stain on my record the issue underlying the entry of the order has been mooted by the administratively close the appeal of that order without ruling under eighty thirteen whether he didn't affirm it modify it r r reverse it with instructions he closed the case which is not one of the again at some point yes i was before judge jernigan on contempt proceedings because she thought i was in contempt of the receivership order by filing appeals from or order and in a couple of cases of both orders were later vacated and the sale closed in december twenty eighth eleven to a company called discovery communications so that there has been a consummation of the sale of the internet domain only two thousand and eleven they insisted that the name be transfer and we filed a motion to convey that they had to discovery channel for a convenience fee of twenty five thousand dollars we fought a motion to approve the conveyance  offered no evidence whatsoever to support his position that the sale was negotiated in good faith and in arms length and that discovery communications wasn't title to the protections of section three sixty three m of the bankruptcy code the judge authorized the immediate sale the the domain name and granted a waiver of the state under rule six thousand for h after a good order to enter that water there were two attempts by noted when you want to obtain a state and i could go through the numbers i have the numbers from this  communications of anything they had the upper hand because they were climbing trees mark infringement under another federal statute so judge jernigan know no back it was good faith arm's length and approved it and said they were good they purchaser name i don't think that creates you know some knowledge that can be a good or bad day and in fact there's a solicitor general letter in the file where they came up with the same argument saying one recently three visit  in the meantime judge the one thing i mentioned about stern v marshall is that property estate is a federal law issue it's section five hundred one of the bankruptcy code that the bankruptcy of the bankruptcy code federal law governs what's an asset me paragraph f of judge john against order the court also heard convincing evidence that the proposed sale was negotiated in good faith and at arm's length and the discovery is a third party purchaser with no fully ations with the debt or the estate of the trustee and accordingly discoveries and title to the protections afforded to it as a good faith purchaser under section three sixty three m of the bankruptcy code or what your set may shift to claim of a lamb or a claim against the title of regions on the word petfinder and that and he's used for sale by the trustee the domain name could lead to claims by discovery of trademark infringement accordingly to the may name is probably the estate and the sale that it may need for twenty five thousand dollars is an exercise of the trustees sound very recent in real wired case provides three sixty three of protections for the sale otherwise you'd have total chaos in the bankruptcy courts of somebody coming in making a verbal is playing was able to stop the latest sale because litigation over sale for years and retrospect we may be charged discovery communications much too little to get them to maining considering what we've had to deal with the last three years i would like to so your honor we would ask that the court affirmed the ruling of contradicts what he told the bankruptcy court on nine on september first two thousand and eleven and that is a tad too and a little binders talking to the court and he says as an and as a result of those meetings with the receiver it was determined that on dover did on monday all the receiver own the other ones and both sides were comfortable with that so so any any claim that petfinder is assumed by the bankruptcy estate today in this court the regularly contradicts what mr or banach told the bankruptcy court that's number one didn't appear in the bankruptcy court to challenge to on the petfinder this case because the receiver was of the opinion that he owned the name so why should he come there to shoot the challenge if i own it why the bankruptcy court can't sell it and that's what mr bannock was telling the bankruptcy judge that the receivership owned it and it was beyond the reach of the bankruptcy court correct exactly exactly and furthermore there is no evidence in the record that the sale of the discovery communications was ever consummated it was raised for the first time in the a pelleas brief in the district court but there's no record evidence of a sale ever being consummated and then the bankruptcy court applied the wrong standard for the finding a good faith in the bankruptcy court standard was good faith at arm's length and and that's not the standard the standard is for good faith is no notice of an adverse claim in the ass and sold for value and i did the bankruptcy court addressed the ownership of the domain as between the receivership and the bankruptcy estate the bankruptcy court was under the impression that she that it was property estate and the sale could be  they said that that that they have an interest in the property and and they made an adverse claim to the name  district court yes it was an appeal to us now it is on appeal to you know to this court now the district court made a determination that the statutory this applies and