had a long and very complex history through fragile and transfer of bankruptcy court litigation in its decision below the bat decided that lariat had no claim to be paid and barbara weekly's separate chapter eleven case but the min bergman's motion was granted perhaps he can address that our court should stay this case pending a decision b remarks really addressed the merits but i agree that the procedural history this case is extremely tangled i'm available to answer other procedural questions as the court may have them i was going to address the merits because i think that's probably the best way to cut cut to the chase in this case first of all larry it has a claim to be allowed to appear in minnesota and barbara's chapter eleven case and nd of course that in our view the files to be six that part is the bottom of the tree go through michael witness chapter eleven case michael whitley pains in round numbers six hundred and thirty seven thousand dollars that much gets paid we haven't even touched by release liability yet in between there's about two million dollars a letter it's never going to collect going to walk away from court court properly apply the the a landlord limitation in his case because he was a guarantor and so nothing that happened in michael reduced the claim against barbara and the best i can give you to supplement my written argument is the tree analogy michael tree this big barboza bottom part of the trunk michael play to pay some of the top branches off there's still a lot to be paid and barbara does not benefit from that payment so the battle is just plain wrong there was no predicate claim and moreover to go back into procedural issues the state court heard arguments and heard letter argument everybody knew a payment and discharge were happening expressly interpret the phrase resulting from and they say it's proximate cause we are we have pretty good idea of proximate cause as that's the immediate proceeding caused two to the and this case when you have a when you not caused by it's not it's not resulting resulting from having been interpreted as proximate cause correct the lease limitation is not applied this is a matter of st impression so what the court does here is going to baps sure they're essentially saying the bankruptcy proceeding involving michael shrunk the tree yes that all that's left of the tree is the part that he paid us you want us to say no the argument was the only reason she's on the hook as a transferee is that there was a claim against michael right so that claim is resolved there's no claim rumanian her but i think there conflating that term claim as it's understood in the bankruptcy says in other words what's going to get paid off from bankruptcy estate and the liability of michael disregarding the discharge because for fragile and transfer purposes you disregard  just six hundred thousand he probably would have cut into barbara's claim and reduced reliability but that's those aren't the facts of this case and i see that i'm getting short on time i hear you wish to save time for about i would but i'm out thank you thank you for your good morning or may please the court my name is michael berg amend i'm a company and i represent apple e barbara weekly in this matter i'm accompanied this morning by mr john lamie who is miss weekly's primary bankruptcy counsel in this matter and he's actually done most of the labor on this claims objection process including appearing at the bapi airing and also arguing on the underlying bank's bankruptcy matter i do you know representing apple e halfway through michael way to chapter eleven bankruptcy case so i get involved in her bankruptcy one event start to reach back into that past including the collateral estoppel arguments before i begin i want to actually address one of the questions you had about stamp the underlying fraudulent transfer judgments asked us to stipulate and go back and have that appeal proceed and it did we you know and then it became a dual track process again where the baptists considering the arguments on the claims objection the state court was considering thought you've gone to the cap issue which is in my mind the nd issue i thought the st issue was whether they even have a claim at all against and that's what i'm our yes you're i that's what i'm arguing because they don't have a clue please address the plain language of the bankruptcy code written by state court issue and if you look at that it says the lesser of the asset or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditors claim so they still have a claim against ms wigley based on the nd clause the amount necessary to satisfy the creditors claim claim against the transfer are your honor so the claim against mr whately if you go back to the definitions of the claim well the claim is it's a claim against a transfer or it's a separate collection remedy against the debtor here mr whately who is liable for a lease guarantee it doesn't create an independent claim against mrs whately and that's that's been i think repeatedly decided by the circuit brief which would be an ability to say well now a payment has occurred on a judgment and our judgments are equally be satisfied because of the derivative nature of fraudulent transfers under your view of this and what's to prevent a de from fraudulent transferring all of his assets declaring bankruptcy getting a discharge from the claim for a substantial discount and then transferee gets to keep the money and so long as he pays whatever it takes to get the discharge but that's a narrow rule i mean this is a pretty rare case where you have a landlord you need that the battery light on the landlord cap as capping michael ba ly billet so that this situation only applies where you have that cap in place in the st instance and then it not only it has to be paid on top of it so the discharge so it doesn't that argument of the bab ran directly into the language that only derivative related libel and that's under a circuit law and being the revolution libel means that if the debtor is no longer libel for the claim either she and so the claim is zero disallowed in its entirety and there's nothing further to collect not independent liability and it takes the same character under bankruptcy when five to be six is looking at the nature of the claim it adopts the same character as the transfer or debtors liability which that issue beyond the briefing but it does it turns again on this issue that that transfer is derivative which is not contested i don't think i don't think anyone's contested that basic result that is not overcome by reference to five hundred and twenty four in which are discharged cases where by the way there hasn't been caps applied in those any of those cases that i'm aware of five  whole lot of other remedies that state creates the right you agree state law creates property rights of bankruptcy and i don't you know again i'm not sure this is a property right versus a claim there's certainly a state law claim created ok i agree with about i'm sure we could stipulate and supplement the record with the motion the opposition and the and the order if the court so directs it's just an idea will leave it to the court otherwise to direct us to that or not i don't very well the case is submitted thank you both counsel for your argument