it's unfortunate if the appellee don't get the compensation they thought they were entitled to under their employment contract but they are no different than the hundreds of other creditors in this case will also have not been paid under their contracts and this court it talks about any thing any breach of performance or contract that could be satisfied through money judgment is a claim ok so what i guess my question  state court injunction have on this case ok well with regard to the effect it had originally to prevent the debtors from acting in violation of the injunction but upon the bankruptcy are and and it's that they're not really it's not like a breach of contract where they have a choice whether to comply with the injunction as though it were a contract or else pay damages the whole idea of an injunction is no choice just do what you're told well your honor in fact that's that's right to a certain extent but in the ninth circuit case of child the ny circuit recognized that under california law as long as there's an alternative right to money judgment then it becomes a claim under the bankruptcy court now if you had the type of injunction injunction prevented a person from approaching another person for fear of violence the court would meet with or that may not be a money a money damages remedy for that the court could enforce that but here where you have really all that is wrong or there's there's two layers the list the exact language out of the contract of employment contract so you have this one layer of of the policy which gives rights and the second layer of the injunction problem with the idea that when you've got a contract  except where it's a contract for has something unique like a very it's a very and the remedy is damages but once there's an injunction i don't understand where the  public gore can do anything with comply well your honor i reached for you to ohio and in that case there was an injunction and the supreme court there said look there's that we have the same situation well let me ask you a question about that you kills that conduct i'm not sure i understood this right but if i didn't understand it right the way this insurance work was it was the kind instead what happens is because of the big payments the beginning of the insurance company accumulates cash value at a faster rate than usual and takes the subsequent premiums out of but there's a default provision that the party doesn't they can allow it to be taken out of their cash value which belongs to the belong to the party taxed i've seen policies like this and the way they're usually marketed if i understand it right is yes says that if you want to keep your cash value of you want to borrow against your life insurance but the other thing you can do is just forget about it and you get one hundred thousand dollars or three hundred thousand dollars of life insurance for very little total cash and i thought this was that kind of policy is i don't know your honor whether how it was market or whether was a typo all i know is that there is an obligation to continue payment but there is a it seems to me that so long as they did not take the positive act of demanding the cash value for themselves that or changing the beneficiaries even if they never wrote another check the beneficiaries would still get all the money when the names insurers side if they allowed the company to withdraw from the cash value i mean i guess they could have said no we want to keep our cash value of insurance arguably that can be remedied by damages and that's if if the names insurers are beneficiaries pay the premiums when the company wasn't doing as they could just get damages for the premiums they paid however the part of the injunction that prevents the company from taking the cash value for itself or changing the beneficiary that could not be remedied by have payment of damages in the same way most certainly a pretty rare because what we're talking about is insurance contracts the full amount of damages i mean even if they cancel the policy the to happen you joke what happens if you were rob of your own i guess you could use even present value perhaps if you were deprived of your ability to collect two million dollars which the maximum you could ever get under any circumstances and that's simply a payment change a beneficiary will be here with the same situation what we would have is a policy which allows the debtor to change the equitable benefits or own less than half of it well all it's an injunction never said it's legal or equitable but it says you own the house but you have to take care of the house and for the children and give it to the children when they grow up even though it doesn't use any words of equity at all it has created a limitation on the legal  well two things your honor first of all this particular injunction all if it didn't really reflect on the power of the rights of the policy it just inforced separate contract which which placed restriction the second of all the answer i think the bankruptcy code and i would like to reserve my time with more questions right now yes are the orange county superior court order one is that after two fifty seven thank you we are is it the point that the court has raised is precisely of what happened here in terms of the mechanics of the policy there was a purchase of the policy originally back in the one thousand nine hundred forty five timeframe there were ongoing obligations to pay premiums  and the payment the premium splash the original purchase caused the value of the policies to exceed the face amount of the death benefit so as a result in approximately august of two thousand i tried to because it's available it immediately converts any injunction that's a pre partition injunction into a post petition and claim for monetary damages there was this issue was weighed both by the bankruptcy court initially and by cases such as the cases that are cited in the trop case to the california supreme court and the cases cited by the bankruptcy appellate panel on that point there were some there were there were several cited for different shades of the  of those i don't know i had to draw one year on which would be which i can identify as the best among them i think the probably the discussion from the bankruptcy appellate panel on that correct point summarizes the principles best and i don't remember which which case specific two hundred thousand dollars for the creditor who obtained the injunction to come in and later on letting on at a later time but it wasn't the situation that we have in this case where the injunction there was the injunction was against the party who subsequently violated the injunction and that distinction is critical because it negates the theory of the trustee that this has to arise in some sort of debtor creditor transaction  in or outside of that in order to be political because in this case there was an existing injunction which was just simply violated by the debtor before the case was filed and as a result of that there was nothing given nothing exchanged by the appellate in this case part anything else that occurred at that time other didn't do to scream outrage afterwards and apparently they were able to authority had we had we asked for a contempt citation to punish the debtor i don't know whether that would that would be the case but the remedy in this case was easy positioned and presumably because the trustee subsequently stopped making the payments of the premium and then the premiums are now being paid by deduction from the equity in the policy then presumably that is something which we step but i think that clearly was this court's decision in the you know case which addressed specifically the issue of whether wrongfully tain property constitutes property in the state of simplifying the ruling a little bit but that  thank court i think you're out of the the bankruptcy court needn't have gone any farther than it did which is to make the decision on whether the the debtor had the power to bring that property into the estate whether that property as a definitional matter even constitutes property of the estate and whether if if it came into the estate nominally by virtue and that had we attempted to take further steps and actually try to to try to do something that would pop wish the debtor or possibly pain lateral  or incidental damages from the act or something like that i think there might have been a conceptual difficulty in imposing any additional relief but because this tie so closely to the issue of what constitutes property the estate and what the rights of the  case a living creditor can levy on property despite there being an injunction which would prevent the debtor let me explain my problem with that it seems to me that the injunction creates an equitable interest so it becomes like property held in