stop distribution to the creditor they were they had sixteen million dollars worth of bonds my clients will soon inspect second action for affirmative relief because had those claims been disallowed we would have been entitled to an additional three hundred thousand bring objection against the trustees lawyer i didn't bring an objection against the lawyer for the creditors committee and outside of the bankruptcy court i didn't find i don't have authority i don't have authority for the proposition the best i have is the authority in the pan am case which alludes to the fact that the creditors committee then you have a right to assume for example if you have a corrupt creditors committee there must be there must be a right otherwise a creditors committee could take all the money you have or distribute it there must be a right there must be a right to  the attorney come in and just answer the questions i think i think there may have been a different issue but i'm having a hard time figuring out why you didn't have the opportunity to pursue this talk i'm sort of the same operative was actually in court ready opportunity and you're just telling as well you made a decision to go file a class action state or that well it's just a judge indicated in and the transcript which i think is before the court you know if you find if you find the printers you could sue them but i don't see that you have a right i mean that with that think we i think we could have tested it and appealed and saw whether we dismissed as to the bankruptcy matter not being fine but i still believe that it was a different fundamental issue that you're running upstream against the purpose doctors like collateral estoppel that say hey what you're in there in the ring you've got an opportunity to fight it out for ten rounds and if you're going to retreat and try to come into another ring there has to be an end to life at some point and you for you you walk away from your attempting to get damages from him was not going to get him when he actually was made to the creditor and the creditors attorney so i don't you know i understand i understand the way you see it i guess i just don't see it that way because i your claim was that they use insider knowledge and by these obligations so that's the nucleus you've got to have reason to do the same dirty deeds regardless  community issue that immunity has been extended to trusting in bankruptcy it's been extended by the skull case to the attorneys for the trustee in bankruptcy it's never been extended nor should it be extended to the creditors committee where the attorneys for the creditors for me and i and you're trying to extend some kind of a responsibility to the creditors also right i believe the credit i was in unsecured my clients were not secure creditor the creditors committee supposedly represented my clients i believe the attorney owed my years not to disclose that there was claims trading going on it seems to me that there's shielded only when there are forthright and i think there was the findings are at issue by the district court judge but there has to be some duty of disclosure for alastor creditors not on the creditors committee he doesn't get information but for from the creditors committee or the attorney from the creditors committee that's to be some duty run  they would recover an extra three hundred thousand dollars there was a notice of intended action that the bankruptcy trustee intended to distribute funds to the water and that there was this issue that arose in connection with claims tra that's correct your your lawsuit the state court class action exactly what were you seeking to recover we were looking to recover one for my clients the additional three hundred thousand dollars thousand and we filed a class action in the the things discover the commonality but everybody would have done better had these claims been disallowed what is everybody would have done better in dollar terms well if you're not paying sixteen million dollars in bond claims to creditor claims traded there's arguably sixteen million dollars to be distributed to all the other creditors under the status quo one of your clients recovered i think likewise recovered roughly i think it's around three hundred thousand dollars on a million to on a and it's carmel bought the claims for five cents on the dollar somebody else holders they could not have been disallowed at that at the time that they were acquired by the carmel apple the only basis of their being disallowed was the supposed insider knowledge trading that that was the argument that was made that they should be subordinated was was an insider trading and the courts present rejected that the argument that appellant came up with afterward was the thing would have the same result but it was a different legal  point one of the fundamental reasons why bankruptcy reorganization plans are race to the car we don't want all that disgruntled creditors any creditor who thinks they got a raw deal in a bankruptcy we don't hollowing four points the first being that individual creditors of the bankruptcy estate do not have standing to bring an action against the council to the creditors committee and at that these define a case in our brief the second would be even if the  council so as as an initial matter there was no can no no problem with that the interests were were viewed as being identical to the extent that an individual creditor might assert that the committee itself was being corrupt they had they had various remedies to them the members of the committee are actually pursuant to eleven eleven zero two of the bankruptcy code they're appointed by the office of the united states trustee and the committee is accused of being corrupt the first relevant remedy of a creditor is to go to the office of the united states court can't order the u s trustees office to act in to replace committee members the last remedy that would be available to them would be perhaps a suit against either the committee itself or the individual member of the committee but not against the committee authority not merely to make a further and further interim distribution in the case but also to make a final distribution in the bankruptcy case and the bankruptcy court looked into the objections that were raised by the bologna claimants and decided that it was final distribution in a case we were ready to do so that order was never that order was never challenged now before the district court the district court had raised the question to be the one nine hundred ninety five distribution and said well there was no candide in fair disclosure before before the bankruptcy court at the time of the one nine hundred ninety five distribution and i responded to that was what actually we didn't get to argue but had we got been able to argue before the district court what we would have pointed out was the fact that in one thousand nine hundred five first there were malpractise by their clients and the facts of the case were that the debtor had come before the court in the context originally of an interim fee application and then a final fee application and at the time of the final fee application the  was that the debtors attorney had the right to rely on the finality of that of the order on the thieves or for the evaluation of their services in what they were entitled to receive in connection with their services and the fact that these are the facts that gave rise to malpractise claims and come up at the time of an insurance the application it didn't matter it was known at the time of the final approval and the final approval effectively blessed what the attorney had done back in and an interim without unless you have any questions i was mr holton says that if we allow you to go forward in the state court that the short of it is that you have to convince the state court the judge adler was wrong in her handling of the core of this case is that right  wrong well judge adler at least would be before judge adler to get some decision on the record she issued an injunction and i feel that and the court said the case the injunction was meant to bar me from state court but not bankruptcy court and state court you'd be asking the state court to under the bankruptcy judges i would not know i think those issues are different and i would ask the state court to decide the issues in my state court complaint which is a practical matter it is now an adversary proceeding