correct your honor now look at the practicalities of it distribution study money's gone receiver's role is completed is that right well in essence no your honor and what i'd like to say in this is it they filed their motion almost simultaneously with the court hearing try to its motion to let stay within a week try to will file filed a motion asking  objecting to the distributions ok and i want to read from from the perp for relief in that motion it was in some due process requires joint allow and try to all a right to assert claims any meaningful manner before a neutral trier of fact the receiver mischaracterize documented facts demonstrates he's an advocate try to also say cannot rest by way of his arbitrary determination of its status accordingly this court perfect an appeal so you went so the district court had a hearing on the distribution and on your objection correct to destroy overruled your objection ordered the money distributed did you ask for any kind of stay at that point all this motion and said no no no no no after the district court entered the order ordering approving the distribution your honor it seemed you asked for a stay did you go to the right eventually there's the receiver distributed the funds correct right ok is there anything left i'm not sure whether we know that there was a hold back of about seven hundred down we also know that that there was about three point one million dollars that was collected as far as the the receiving end with c p eighteen well the receiver had to give a full accounting sure correct sure and we know i remember reading that some part that they held back about seven hundred to have that that relief or that injunction lifted at some time and winky to essentially stated precisely that it's not a matter of if it's a matter of went in a very very similar case winky to the receivership is gone up for quite a period of time and the lawyers went you know filed their motion for relief from state the judge denied it ok that the estate was close to at the end of its of its life cycle and the and this court found that it was an abuse of discretion not to let that stay ok and not only that but the judge in that particular case took  the you get to see you objected to the proposed distribution correct what i have gen u put together a whole packet of material for the district court to lay out the basis for allowing any cross examination of any kind which is a pure violence to due process and in and of itself mean cross examination is given has been considered to be the greatest engine of truth fighting and argued judicial system and beyond that didn't allow a jury trial which is afforded by the seventh amendment so is is there any case authority that would support your argument that the district court was required in this equity proceeding to conduct a full on evidence or hearing to determine the validity of your claim yes your honor and i believe that arizona universal financial provides for precisely that and i've cited brief and and universal financial case in which an equitable receivership there was many many claimants in the case and what the what the judge did there was very astutely he he counted rise each one or all of the various types of claims and he proceeded to try twelve cases ok and out of those twelve cases then of applying collateral stop last soon found the facts in the remaining cases that were not actually try and made a summary determination ok and in fact universal was discussed later on and and i believe it was discussed in winky three whereby they said the universal you know  think winky to purpose brought precisely that that result you know i mean and you know i i don't think just because you're in a receivership equity position that you lose your constitutional rights the initially issued in this case ok the order specifically had to provide for relief it had to provide try to and other people and similar situated to try to get well claim allows you to file a that goes beyond that your honor it's say it states that before that injunction can be granted you must be given the opportunity to get relief from it and that presumes that when you step in front of a court of law that you will have plenty rights you will have your constitutional rights that you'll have i think over the same pot of money you're right even assuming you have a claim you're the amount of money you get get mixed in with all the other event you know what i'm a creditor and i'm creditors claim under state california state law takes precedent over investors as does all the partnership agreements that were involved in this each one of these partners investors signed an agreement saying that guess who gets paid for the creditors why didn't we get paid we didn't have a liquidated claim if we decide that suddenly proceedings are fine but they do comport with due process allows us you had notice and an opportunity to be hurt if you have notice and an opportunity to be heard and there was a case that was extended briefing filed in this case no question we had an opportunity to be heard but what was that opportunity the opportunity to give rise to due process of law motion to lift the stay the receiver was arguing that there was not a color book claim because the statute of limitations had run and that c p three got consideration you know for for the one point eight million dollars a transfer to c p eighteen and the way he argued that was it c p three got an interest and essentially c p eighteen then later on doesn't give c p three any recognition as a creditor of this of the c p eighteen est so i mean cross examination showing the books and records you know the company showing that these these obligations were booked and each one of these entit please court i'm john stevens appearing on behalf of the liquidating trustee successor to the court appointed receiver there are three points i'd like to address but i think the court has cut to the essential parts of this first question is of course is a summary proceeding except the bulb in the equitable receivership as this one was and i think the case law is fairly clear that yes summary proceedings are appropriate there are circumstances although i think even appropriate the question has been left open whether in some circumstances a plenary proceeding might be acceptable those are proceedings where there is a direct dispute between the receiver and a holder of property and we see in cases like that i was not unlike the universal case that the f c c had where there was to cease over actual loans or notes in this case that's not what we have to try to do we had dozens of people involved in this  case most of them have far more invested than try to try to have a two hundred thousand dollars claim some of these individuals had as much as five hundred thousand dollars most of those people did not get much back we did our best to bring the money in but again try motion for relief from state which was denied try to a wanted to drag several of the receivership entities into state court where c p three is a defendant the judge had to waive that versus what was going to be the appropriate equitable approach this case and denied that motion and with good reason considering as well whether or not there was this fraudulent claim then we went forward with the actual distribution and that did occur before the state court but to answer your question c p eighteen's assets have been distributed and the only money that's remaining now is money being held by what was the general partner because we had this common general partner for all these single asset limited partnerships so there is money remaining for the general partner what's was this c r i koeppen realty koeppen wealth management real estate same thing just successors but they are the general partner they were the general partner and the receiver and liquidating trustee have stood in the shoes of the of the general partner so those assets are now held by the liquidating trustee now formally the receiver on behalf of the general partner not c p a eighteen the judge players and getting back to your question of was there a fraudulent transfer there were two loans that were disputed by try to one of them was a loan from pacific western ba after fees were taken out of it one point seven nine five there's no question that c p three obtain that loan and transfer that money to c p eighteen i would have to think the full expectation that it would be spent to acquire c p a teams property but that was fully accounted for there were receivables and payables on the books of and records of both entities c p eighteen had a payable to c p three c p three had a receivable from c p eight hundred for the full amount of the money important fact here this was february of two thousand and seven in march of two thousand and seven c p eighteen acquired this property this north carolina property and as part of that there was the second loan or the second transfer made and that was the money to pay for this carry back again these are are fairly common commercial transactions other than the number of players involved so we have the equity loan passing through and we have a carry back to c p three pays off again that obligation was fully documented on the books or records there's this was a three hundred thirty three approximately value note that was accounted for on he's fully documented these things in this regard pretty carefully and what happens alternately as in february and in march i'm sorry april we now move forward to april same year two thousand and seven c p three sells his property and several things happened try to it was the purchaser of that property try to will got this conditional two thousand dollars two hundred thousand dollars note along the way though c p three now has its investors to pay off now has sold its assets this is several months after the loan from the set of western bank so it can be no claim by try to will that that was a fraudulent transfer because it wasn't even a creditor at the time however try to will can at least arguably claim to be some rights as to the pacific western loan bank loan because that happened shortly after it closed its transaction but now focusing only on what happens with this sale of c p three s property c p eighteen now owes c p three one point seven nine five million c p three ozo owes all its investors for their investments so what happens is c p three transfers those assets those those that obligation to the investors they then become investors in c p eighteen to the tune of a little more than one point seven million dollars very little left of that one they now become investor so that takes care of almost all of the debt the only debt remaining at that point is this wendover transfer so we know that the first one hundred thirty thousand three hundred thirty plus the remaining money that hadn't been paid off because the investors only got one point seven instead of one point one five but the total now with the three hundred thirty now becomes a little over four hundred thousand dollars so again as a result of what happened with the c p three transaction c p three also had an obligation not just to its investors but to the general partner general partners typically do have rights in these properties and in addition to that and this is a very important  fact the property that try to will got included a parcel owned by the general partner try to a got that the general partner had not been paid so now we have c p three with not only the obligations to its investors that were taken care of by this no vacation with c p eighteen we also have c p three with the obligation to pay off koeppen real estate for this interest in land and its interest on the in the partnership that then was taken care of by instead of having c p three pay the general partner have c p eighteen do it now c p eighteen knows that money instead of two c p three to the general partner so c p three now has cleared its books properly so in a straight commercial transaction and all the parties that were entitled to money got their money so there couldn't have been fraudulent transfers because there was value for every transaction that occurred they were well documented and if we look and i've cited you the record granted there is a lot of tedious transactions in this but i've tried my best to simplify the transfers to show that there was value received at every turn and there could not have been a fraudulent transaction because of the value received but stuart another point the early but earlier by the court that is part of this equity receivership there was the motion for relief will stay that was denied but there was after that the motion to distribute the assets again the receiver is is doing his best to collect as much as he can  and pay it out to the people that are rightful creditors try to will did not have a direct claim this two as to c p eighteen the other investors did leave holders did try cool hadn't perfected it's lean even against c p three there was nothing recorded no security they were simply trying to get into that pot of money held by c p a eighteen and using these transfers that had been made fully documented legitimate transfers as an avenue to get into  that pool of money the claim was was denied by the receiver we argued to the court that there was no fraudulent transfers we argued to the court that c p that try to will did not have a legitimate claim the court accepted that and did authorize the distribution of the money and there was no stay and not only that but later there were additional distributions made to other entities by the receiver and ultimately the receivership itself was cancelled it was terminated and liquidating trustee was appointed at that point try to a didn't file any opposition to the motion to terminate the receivership either so try to will just allow this all to move forward knowing that the receiver on the other hand had an obligation and was moving forward with that obligation to pay as many people as properly could be paid they only have the last point i'd like to make is in light of the history of all these transactions there could be no fraudulent transfer because of the value received but judge the district judge judge real also concluded as you probably should have that with this for your statute of limitations for fraudulent transfers the first pacific western bank loan that was transferred the one point seven nine million dollars had to have been barred that was done in february two thousand and seven bar date would have been february two thousand and eleven four years later try all hadn't raised a claim at all because the receivership actually hadn't even existed at that point that that claim was exhausted it was barred there was a second claim though fraudulent transfer made against wendover now the timing here is a little tighter but i think ultimately we reach the same conclusion the wendover note occurred as a result c p a t s purchase but the payoff of that by c p three didn't occur until late in april two thousand and seven and in the meantime c p three had sold its property so what c p three did was i'm sorry would try to will dead was after its no wasn't paid years later because the line wasn't removed it filed a lawsuit in state court and ultimately it filed an amended complaint in april of two thousand and eleven just a few weeks before the c p i'm sorry before the wendover note was issued there was a question there whether or not there for there the amended complaint would relate back to if the go allegations would support a claim against c p a team but if you look at that point final point and i think it's really honestly a minor point but if you look at the center the second amended complaint and look at the out the dough allegations they don't support a claim against c p a team that only supports a claim against the c p three creditors who already had been sued so ultimately all the claims were barred by the statute these are stale claims these relate back to transactions in two thousand and seven the receiver did the best he could what happened to try to is not unlike what happened to a lot of other folks there just was not enough assets to get everybody paid and that's the reason we ended up in receivership how much money is actually left right now very little has been spent i think a little over six hundred thousand and we do intend to make further distributions t people in those entities not c p a team that there are other entities where there are claimants who will be paid with the remaining funds and we do hope to get it tied up as quickly as possible thank you ok thank you if you a minute for not a fraudulent transfer because the investors and the company went over here and set up a new company and left all of its creditors behind that's a classic fraudulent transfer can't do it that's precisely what they did two thousand and seven that note sat on the books and then was credited against the entity giving the two not the end of the c p three but to the investors classic you can't do that and if you could i mean people would be able to probably transfer assets from company to company and avoid creditors and payment of creditors  and just every single instance so it is not these are hotly disputed facts it's obvious from from what we're talking about here the statue limitation issues are hotly disputed because there are a disputed facts try to  always within the four years statute ok on that it didn't need to name anybody as you don't defend it can name anybody at that point that is still a libel and so that disposes of the argument as far as the three hundred thirty three thousand being you know ok thank you very much counsel will this matter is submitted on the at this time and will move to the final case in the morning