factual record i want you know that we've we've we've marched through it and we kind of i think we have some handle on what what's occurred in this case so let's get to the heart of it the trustee has five show why should the trust the people mete just to sell their stock to benefit secure creditors and possibly the administration of this state take it on yes your honor not actually was going to come down towards the bottom and that really  and the other the personal property the when the when the farm operations that were on the real property we proved over time that that was just a false perjurious argument that it was not true it was contrary to two and as set forth in the declaration of mr barman contrary to what the findings of the state court were and evidence in the state court the other problem was that the e alaska or the appeal allowed us to settle and when you look at this case you know it's the big picture it's the settlement motion provided for the division of funds in the trust account twenty estate was one point one million dollars wasn't just this five hundred sixty thousand three sixty of which is allocated for taxes but hopefully we'll never have to pay those taxes and that's what we continue to say so it's that the problem was the debtor would put in their motions for a new trial in the state court and said this is why we're going to win on appeal but they never put in the other side of the story but the trustee looked at both sides of the story and said we have a tough row to hoe in any circumstances and in this trial particularly and especially as the facts progressed and the court found that mr jones continued to commit perjury throughout the case deny it on the merits as an alternative grounds in the order deferring ruling on business the bass side of the two cases which i wanted to touch on because i think it really emphasizes what's dismissive but it remanded it saying you can't just imply good faith that was there was no record at all in fitzgerald's two thousand and ten bad case the trustee again did not seek a good faith finding there was no evidence of good faith but they snuck the trustees not so to speak a good faith finding in the sale order and the pap said you can't do that there was no record to support the finding and no request have been made for the finding  declaration of the buyer that details the extensive marketing and the competitive bidding for the for this project the buyer submitted a declaration of good faith and there's really no question that the buyer has no connection with any party in this matter and you know it really is what i consider to be a poster child for what a good faith purchaser is supposed to look like when you get in the situation and  is being tested secondly i want to touch on the issue one of the court even made a finding because the although in a lot of the papers and the way the appellate stated the issue about did the bankruptcy court error in finding good faith there's an argument particularly in the reply that the that the language in the sale orders at paragraph eight is by or by or is deemed to be a good faith purchaser entitled to the protections of eleven u s c section three sixty three m and the the argument is that to deem this is less than a finding that there are you know uses of the word seem to use to mean something different nothing really there on appeal the only issue it seems to me is this question of something happening after the closing that would raise an issue of good faith that there was some kind of misconduct  after the order was signed into the associated with the delay in closing of the transaction yes your honor that's exactly right there was no raising of this good faith issue until the  made a motion to dismiss the appeal has moved and the there's never been any evidence presented by the appellants about this good faith issue there's been evidence to refute what was presented  but i think the the really important part of that is that the the argument there's an argument raise that there's bad faith post sale but it really makes no sense and i don't and even if it was true it says i don't think it's relevant to any of the good faith issues the argument is that the buyer is speculate that the buyer somehow delayed the close of escrow you know which makes no sense because the buyer was incurring losses  waiting and diligently trying to close the sale and there is plenty of evidence before the court that that's what happened you know it was it was the appellant that was wanting to delay the escrow not the buyer or the trustee it's quite the opposite and the other issue that the other argument raised is that there was another property not part of the sale that was on the neighbor's property and the neighbor insisted on moving it off of his property the jones was trying to sell it  and and and the evidence is that the buyer and the buying that forklift at mr mr jones's request but the allegation is that the buyers forklift and it's just irrelevant to any council i'm going to interrupt you there i think i understand what you're saying you're saying that at this point these are only unsubstantiated allegations there tears no meat on these bones so we'll look at that i'd like to hear now from the attorney for five minutes from  you to get out from from one victorian state court can you address that yes your honor the appeal was from a judgment rendered after a significant trial that went through two phases in the riverside superior court a significant judgment twenty two million dollars in favor of my client if the jones related parties had really had the best interests of creditors at heart it would have filed this bankruptcy case within the ninety day preference window after my client recorded its  lien and they could have easily avoided the lien and realize value for creditors so judge johnson comment on that more than once right absolutely no and if that's what mr jones and his entities wanted to accomplish they could have done that quite easily  we would've then had a large unsecured claim in the dynamics in this case would have been significantly different we were very confident in our our belief to succeed on appeal we believe that the state or got the even if even if we had somehow lost on appeal in all likelihood that would have resulted in a rematch to the riverside county superior court perhaps a new trial on some or all of the issues and we would have then been dealing with with trying that case either there or in the bankruptcy court all in a state that didn't have any any real resources to to litigate that dispute and most importantly by the time i think we would have we would have gotten there  to testimony in that case supporting the debtor's position was mr jones testimony and by the time we made it through the bankruptcy case mr jones had perjured himself on numerous occasions something that i'm sure that my state court litigation counterparts would have used to great success in front of the riverside now certainly taken inconsistent positions and inconsistent positions at the most charitable is the most charitable way of describing it roger and so i think that his credibility at that point was shot he was the key witness for the debtor in that case he managed that litigation once already and lost to the tune of twenty two million dollars it's a very large very large number and so i think we would have prevailed without all actual spite or i believe it was your honor with some prejudgment interest and i want to say about sixteen million actual damages and then the rest was interest and things of that nature and what's the status of the trust f significant impact your honor because twenty percent of those proceeds assuming that my client and the estate prevail twenty percent of those proceeds will end up flowing to the bankruptcy estate and i do want to point out that mike my client is essentially taken on and this is another reason i think that the sale of the settlement makes so much sense for the for the bankruptcy estate my client has taken on most of the risk related to this continued litigation with tender land renewals and the jones he's we had this twenty two million dollar lien against a piece of real estate and we ended up recovering after all of the deductions from the waterfall about three percent of our total claim from the sale of the real estate so the bulk of our recovery is going to come if if we prevail in this litigation regarding the trust fund because my client will get eighty percent of that money if we if we prevail very briefly your honor i want to address already in the ninth circuit on this point the bankruptcy judge didn't require my client or anyone else to agree to terms or impose terms of upon us he gave us the opportunity and guidance and suggested certain things that he had problems with as far as the settlement goes and then the parties had an opportunity to analyze those new terms and then agreed to them on the record so this is a completely different case than what judge johnson did is is not at all unusual in the context of settlements that often changed at the hearing to either address concerns that the bankruptcy judge had war that the other parties thank you thank you the trustee has three more minutes  feel like i'm going to share with all of you but you know it's kind of a one sided fight right now it is your honors and thank you very much again for sharing this appeal this is an end of the appeals that are before the court today and there's four of them all have the same standard of review and they're all abuse of discretion and it's our position that judge johnson did not abuse his discretion in any way with regard to the settlement motion presented pages and pages and pages of evidence as to why each of the factors under the a and c properties test were met why the settlement was in the best interest of the creditors why the settlement was better and more cost effective in going forward with the litigation and why the settlement should be approved and this settlement paves the way for the sale so assuming and we believe we have confidence we're not over you know we're not so cocky as to believe that we absolutely will in but we believe we have very good facts in the tender land that are in that all that tender land has if at all is a claim in the estate for funds do because tender land continued to shift their position as to why they purportedly own the chanter land fund's turning back but that being said that's why we believe this is a good settlement because at the end of the day one point one million dollars approximately you know plus or minus a few hundred is coming into the estate from the settlement and from the sale and after something a little bit unseemly i mean it it one point kind it was like fifteen million dollar fifteen thousand coming into these statements it's sort of grown largely under the  amount of money coming into their state five sixty on the sale the balance about five seventy out of the trust fund the judge just looking at the sale said well if you're going to pay taxes and we've always said if you serve we're not saying we have to you the worst possible scenario if all that has to be paid then there's only a limited amount left and so i want to make sure that some of that is going to drop down before below adman's that's why the jones related parties keep saying it's only this much money it's not five sixty it's only fifteen thousand dollars but it is that the court needs to look and see if in the trustees best business judgment the carve out is sufficient for distribution but caveat i didn't say in that case that that tiny little  was not sufficient in fact the caveat in court as your honor may recall said we're standing about so again we believe these cases are moot the bell has been rung the  closed deeds were recorded by means distributed the settlement was contrary satisfactions of judgments were recorded litigation was dismissed and that and and i think we have a handle on what's going on here thank you very much