keep this case alive and to the extent that there is an injunction not if he doesn't have to have that sort of damages in this case if there is an injunction against him that requires him as opposed to any other person in the united states to get leave of court before filing it damages action isn't that something that he could contend is improper that he should have the right to file a damages action that wouldn't require him to have  general has not been applied in receivership context as opposed to a bankruptcy context right it's actually not the law that's that's not actually correct that maybe the circuit the court has not so held but actually i believe both in the  morning paul niehaus on behalf of steven baron let us be clear why we're here at the sole purpose of this motion prevent this court from ever reviewing a multi million dollar transaction it's not an argument about r on that caravan has moved on so that part is moved that part is moved there ok some consider it there are there are in some cases but let's not so now so now we're really talking about is the order confirming the sale and imposing a certain kind of injunction right that's two parts to the same order your ok so so tell us what is live now that the sale has been confirmed consummated done what is it that mean that the underlying order itself isn't all that underlying order was improperly entered parents should not have to go to a court either now or in the future to ask permission to file a lawsuit and the lawsuit that you're contemplating is a suit for damages would be a suit for damages is that not really all that remains is a something else that i'm mistaking in this not at all you that's the only thing you're asking us to do stick now whatever it was originally you appeal the plumber you want to do is to file an action for damages and there is an injunction that requires permission for you to do that and as to that you want to argue to a panel of this court on the merits that that was improper negotiations of this transaction the purchaser was definitely aware acutely aware that this matter was involved in litigation it made sure to obtain indemnification clause it made sure to obtain a litigation holdback it not a party to these actions is it it's not a party to this action your honor but it was the party who demanded that the receiver of tameness court order in the first place the third party purchaser was so concerned about that occasion the possibility that this transaction would be wouldn't need to be a party though to the action in order to accomplish and on line that first of all it can be named as a relief defendant in this matter i don't think that's a problem at all second of all this court can remove the stamp of approval provided by the district purchased the portfolio has generated incredible amounts of cash since june first which is the relevant cutoff date in this period that money was sent to the purchaser along with the underlying loans or auto l very simple to say you know what the district court should not have approved district courts would not approve the transfer of tens of millions of dollars to the purchaser and what about the licensure twenty percent of portfolio being subject to the licenses in maryland  pennsylvania of all i i can test whether or not it would be impossible for the receiver who is still in charge of condor at this point three obtain those license second of all that's not the standard the standard here is not restoring the absolute status quo standard here is affording any affection will relief what is what isn't the effectual relief damages if something was done that was wrongful what happened that bad is your client lost money on justifiably and money can make it up to him money can make it up to him the problem we have your honour's that the money would have to come from a new lawsuit this court already has jurisdiction over the instant action but there's no demand in the instant action for money there's no demand in instant action for money the risk and the end the ever would have overleaf would be precluded if there is a remedy for damages available so i just don't see what what is alive here other than to say that you can you can sue for damages without it and i am not trying to prejudge the merits but it seems to me if you are right that there was something wrong full done here then the remedy would be to relieve you of  an injunction that requires some special permission to file a lawsuit for damages and god bless you go file a lawsuit for damages which is not what has been going on before what was going on before was an effort to stop the sale that's done tha that requires a hearing on the merits of this appeal if there is a fact that would be but it would be with it would be soon it would be with respect to a rather limited piece of things again we believe the motion should be denied not only with respect to that but with respect to the other relief can still be afforded by this court it can order that the approval order the sale order be rescinded the defeat vacated you can order that restitution be provided that's where the pool of money is the receiver doesn't have a pool of money that it's sitting on other than door itself what you would be doing here was saying go look to the receiver not ignore the pool of money ninety million dollars that has been generated for the purchaser it got away with it it got lucky go after the receiver and if he's judgment proof you're out