now yes i can ok and he's waived his argument we've asked counsel for appellant to make his argument and we intend minutes if we have any questions for counsel for happily we'll ask them and if if if we do  fifty seven dollars b two b which provides of the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over all corporate proceedings which includes and i quote allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate where this case turns does it not on whether or not the proceedings involving these particular proceedings were an adversary proceeding or a claim objection prosy correct your honor because if it was an adversary proceeding then the there was a final judgment and the procedure list and an exclusive list of ten types of proceedings that may be raised as adversary proceedings a claim objection the claim proceeding is not one of those let's have so i can tell that argument about wh won covers was made for the st time to us can you correct me about that if i'm wrong like was this argument made to the bankruptcy court that cannot make this an adversary procedure yes i believe so this it was raised before the bankruptcy court me to where because  i couldn't i thought this was really raised us for the st time it seemed to me that when the bankruptcy court said i think i should make this an adversary proceeding that landmark's counsel i don't know if it was you said that makes sense to me well if i can make a clear distinction in what that means because they're after you file a status for your site or you find a status report that says the courts converted this to an adversary seating so everybody seemed to understand i'm not sure by the way much for your premise that he couldn't turn it into one that's right but forget that for the moment it didn't it doesn't look like anybody said to the judge go hey wait a minute this is a claims objection proceeding this is that researchers well if you look at the status report though it that status report specifically cites ninety four teet of the bankruptcy rules which is the statute or i should say the rule that i've been talking about what that does is it makes a claim objection proceed in a very similar fashion to an adversary where it procedure it allows the bankruptcy court to allow discovery conduct a trial which is exactly what happens and lam i want to clarify that but that's report didn't say we're going to follow the adversary procedures this is been cora party invokes nine hundred and fourteen to apply the adversary roles they often use this phrase converting to an adversary or it's to that effect which is what happened i think what's important for the court to look at is what the court actually did and both of those orders are claim waters the language says allows the claimed the bankruptcy court did not enter a civil judgment in or going or to order a long a claim that is what landmark understood to be what the bankruptcy court would do and had no objection to that so maybe maybe you were confused and i think there is a lot of confusion because there's a lot of mixed language that went on a lot but when the court actually at the end says all along i meant it to be an adversary proceeding i'm going to fix the clerical error at that point did you say you can't do that because seven hundred and one never allowed this proceeding i'm trying to think if i actually raise seven thousand and one what what came up in the context the r v was this is still a claim objection notwithstanding the fact that i couldn't find anywhere where it was raised in the bankruptcy court that this could not be an adversary proceeding which seems to be what your main argument is now well the argument that was raised to the bankruptcy court is for the purposes of determining jurisdiction post dismissal it should be treated as a claim objection not an adversary that was nor specific argument because your question about your ultimate premise i'm reading seven and one and i start from the premise that lots of things are murky here but it says an adversarial proceeding can be a proceeding to recover money or property other than a proceeding to compel the debtor to her property or various proceedings thereafter listed why isn't this a proceeding to recover money or property actually question your honor because a claim proceeding doesn't award money what it does it allows a claim against the bank well you know if it is a claim proceeding but isn't this a proceeding to get an award of dollars they say they say this is how much you owe us and the judge says i've treated adversary proceeding and now i have an award of dollars i'm still go have to put that award into the bankruptcy into chapter eleven proceedings and decide whether you get paid on it given the plan but we know you know what he's going to get paid and that would be that's a separate issue but that's like proceeding backwards in other words why should you make that determination before you mean the bankruptcy court before making the determination of whether or not there well the claim what was the i know is why would you give judgment on a claim that hasn't been allowed what kind of a backward proceeding well it in bankruptcy it doesn't work that way in the sense that the court adjudicates a clip allows a claim against the state whether that can actually be paid or not depends upon the confirmation of a plan of the terms  what i'm saying is if we treat this as an adversary proceeding to determine debtors liability that's putting the cart before the horse because you st have to determine whether to allow is i can say i've been a banksy practitioner for twenty one years i can i'm saying so why would you go through all this business about you know well the debtor is liable for thirty million dollars before you even allow the claim i mean that is it isn't that necessarily the the procedure that the other side is saying happened here  but i guess they want to make a clear point is that the court changed the assumptions of nature of the i c s under some explain to a civil person what you thought you said because you think that was done improperly what you're saying is if they want to collect against us since we're not in a chapter eleven they need to sue all over again correct century of the claims proceedings become moot ok and so put your position is that the court couldn't have turned this into an adversary proceeding now there's two issues here one is whether it did in the nd one is whether it could have and i'm still stuck on someone why couldn't it have under someone seven thousand or one someone why couldn't a court have said more clearly than it did look there's a dispute going on here i don't want to handle this claim i want to have a full fledged adversary proceeding so i can determine whether or not what the amount of this claim is if anything and then i decide whether or not later were to put it in conducted one part of your argument in this brief as i read it is it couldn't have had an adversary proceeding because this is not one of the things listed in seventy thousand or one and my question is it seems to be listed under number proceedings listed in seven thousand and one and i said gee it appears to be listed under seven thousand and one sub one forget all the procedures are nd could this proceeding have been conducted as an adversary proceeding can't do it i understand judges normally don't do it but it seems to be clear statutory authority to do it or at least in the rules i mean it least my understanding of the rules is that and certainly i believe the reply that the baptists at least here seems to us that a proceeding you know it's dealing with that soap so i can't find a case directly on point but i seem to find the ruling point that he had to do what i do without rule i understand your other arguments and judge didn't really do that well and i guess one of the problem i have you can't in bankruptcy there is an automatic stay that stays in the enforcement so the only way to proceed on the claim is to allow the claimant is paid under a plan so there is no mechanism to i'm sorry so that seems to be the baps seems of clearly squarely said we can the automatic state doesn't present prevent the bankruptcy court from conducting adversary proceedings you agree with that  i mean it's kind of what you're saying well yeah it would seem it would be the exception this was the row because the the entire premise of the bankruptcy is to allow this consolidated claims proceedings all the claims are due to cave in as claims against the state and then this rule of saying i don't want to treat this one's claims i want to have a full blown trial i want to have an adversary proceeding in which i will conduct it like it was an ordinary civil matter and maybe i'll find that the claim doesn't exist or maybe i'll find that it does it's perfectly appropriate to conduct a trial as part of a claim objection as a contested matter that is the purpose of seven thousand and fourteen dollars is to allow a trial not working i'm sorry i apologize nine thousand and fourteen dollars c is to allow a trial to be conducted for time objections it substantively is still a claim objection and again that's what the bankruptcy court did here in two thousand and twelve in her claim orders in my issue is the post bankruptcy the judge did something completely different and change the subject of nature of the proceeding where we should ask the question for did it or did it just say ok i don't want you to be confused i meant this to be an adversary proceeding i said it was form of the st order it was a clerical error well there was no an initial order when when the bankruptcy court rule at the st hearing i believe in two thousand and eleven that she would apply the adversary rules there was no with a clerical error no i don't believe that that's what the court said i think what the reference was she it back in the initial hearing in two thousand and eleven the court said that she would move all the files to an adversary proceeding to in a separate file and the bankruptcy court had done that for whatever reason i guess it forgot to do that so my understanding of the order of two thousand and fifteen was the clerical error was that she forgot to do that she forgot to move it into a separate adversary file you've got well over time but i have one of the question it's a question i asked you before when mark doesn't complain about this procedur bankruptcy court ignored our evidence against the weight of the evidence or argument what you're really saying is as a technical matter because this chapter eleven edition was dismissed to him and he said that if this was not if it did not proceed as a claim objection if the proceeded as a normal civil lawsuit there would have been a right to a jury trial which they wanted to know that you may have good reasons to do it  just and they would have and i'm not sure we're not attacking your motives i just want to figure out what the if you win and they want to collect against your client they've got to sue your client again right well i mean the suit is already pending in state court i mean pre bankruptcy there was a so there's no discharge in a dismissed case and the lawsuit against landmark was filed pre bankruptcy so when the bankruptcy was filed it stopped the lawsuit so our position is now the bankruptcy case is dismissed they're free to go back to state court the likely what they're going their way they need a judgment from the state court right it's just a question of whether that judge will take into account this bankruptcy order or not correct we we've taken you over that time but we always i was enjoy me in this case will be submitted and we thank you for your arguments you think you