may please the court we're going to fritz appearing on behalf of alpine securities we're here today to ask this court issue a stay of the district court judgment so that alpine can continue its operations while this court considers what are at least three substantial issues on appeal all of the matters of st impression we've established that each of the relevant factors supports issu on the issue for example of light likelihood of success on the merits the f c c has not even trying to refute that basically saying it's irrelevant with respect to the other issues be the other factors the  has not pushed back in terms of whether those factors are satisfied in fact the f c c has reiterated that it's not actually opposing issuance of the stay instead it's arguing that the stays should be conditioned the specifically the f c c wants the court to condition the stay on a limitation on distribution of profits from the firm and i just want to take a minute to address that it's our position that that condition is st of all unnecessary all distributions of profits from a broker dealer in this very highly regulated industry are controlled finra so in any instance where the firm seeks to distribute a sizable distribution finra has to approve it so we've suggested that that requirement is redundant but we've also suggested that it's problematic this firm over the last few years has gone through an incredibly difficult time problematic when you say the condition that this condition constraining profit distribution is also problematic the firm has gone through incredibly difficult times so much so that within the last two years it has required capital infusions in order just to continue operating to the point where we are today if a limitation is imposed with respect to distributions it's going to severely limit the firm's ability to obtain any capital infusion to the extent that it would need that during the course of this appeal in addition the language that the f c c is requesting for that condition i would argue is overbroad in fact it would even prevent alpine from paying  views its landlord as being an affiliate so for all of those reasons we've asked that the court not impose that condition but to the extent that the court is considering imposition of a condition or seeks otherwise to address the concerns raised by the f c c what we've asked for is that the court expedite the appeal so where we are right now is the f c c continues to ask for a condition that would limit and impede the operations of the firm while it is opposing expediting the appeal there is one last issue that has a that possible just sort of hypothesizing what the timeframe would be for here i certainly raised it in number of times but the response has been quite adamant they oppose expediting the appeal i are we can bump cases and if it's really an emergency we can bump cases but normally cases are assigned out for several six weeks or something that's would maybe even longer  so that would be that would be the consideration but that's something that is it's really a mess from our part right we're asking for expediting of the appeal for two reasons number one because this request for a condition has been made but also because by virtue of these proceedings again the firm has been in an increasingly perilous position while this proceeding has continued we are so anxious eager to present the substantive issues to the court so that these issues regarding jurisdiction regarding the a p a can be resolved and so that's our request for expediting there is one other issue that arose really within the last week and that is a knish really i had not asked for a stay of the injunctive relief in the judgment it's an obey the law injunction that was included by the district court in the judgment and so we had not sought to stay that were were perfectly happy to be subject to and obey the law injunction in till last thursday when finra suddenly presented us with an argument that obey the law injunction subject to statutory disqualification that's that's an issue that had never been raised before i can find no instance in which they've taken that position but based on that communication what we're ultimately asking for is that the court issue a stay of the judgment in its entirety and any action by regulators finra in a c c s d c si know we've not been able to find any this court seems to be where the issue is going to be determined recent events and and we made if we grant the motion i suppose we can ask you to talk to each other about agreeing on some language absolutely ok and so maybe submit something y start by clarifying what's actually before this court the only motion before the court is for a stay of the monetary judgment not a motion for a stay of the injunction and not a motion to expedite this appeal in its basseley overly brief  not spend a single word on either the injunction or expedition and indeed in his reply brief looks to be like they've addressed the question of what about distributions what the what the monetary penalties were  company in the meantime so i think it's relevant all these points that are made by your everson are relevant right sure your honor and you want to st address the primary issue here which is the stay the monetary judgment as my adversary said we are not opposed to a stay in the monetary judgment all we are looking for is conditions to protect against dissipation of assets which actually my adversary never in all the papers that has filed has said alpine is not actually looking to do i understand they have issues with our proposal to stay capital distribution they're not taking account of the commission judgment in this case so the fact that we are in judgment creditor with the twelve million dollars judgment doesn't factor into whether they would approve the capital distribution or not but also note that fin has approval requirement only goes to  distribution is that are ten percent of net capital so the possibility of a slow bleed would still be there even outstanding printers approval but we've indicated to our opposing counsel that we're not averse to working out a way to protect against year seven million dollars since this unfortunate action began we've proposed doing carve outs for regular expenditures such as rental payments and in terms of protecting the ability to receive capital i understand they want to receive capital infusions and then be able to potentially return them all we really want is visibility into that we want to know what's going on and you know have the ability to approve that because again we're here on books and records violations we're here in a situation where finra has a lot of serious allegations against alpine about its representations about its financial condition this is just not a situation where we can live with trust without the ability to verify and that's ultimately what we're looking for   i think we could work out language on that your honor i think it would be something to the effect of you know in an injunction against a stay of capital distribution's without maybe even just without prior notification to the commission and the ability to object  come here st there's a thirty day automatic stay in place absolutely could have gone to district court judge code has ruled expeditiously numerous times in this case could have addressed it and i would note district court is the proper place for these things to go on precisely because there are complicated jackson expediting the appeal fundamental your honor is that it doesn't address our concern all expediting the appeal would do is set a deadline on alpines dissipation of assets and i would note that the that alpine has not identified an actual emergency that would warrant expediting  this case or departing from the regular process would be a problem with our granting the stay and then issuing a what we call a jacobson reman to the district court for purposes of which keeps to keep the case with us it doesn't deprive circumstances and that kind of thing i think that would be fine your honor with respect to a stay of the monetary judgment again alpine has not has st forfeited and then affirmatively raved requests for a stay of the injunction and i do want to touch on that really briefly with you with the court that's been around for a while prior motions in this case and so forth and that it seems to me something that deserves attention i mean you know there's not your position you can see the positions frivolous because there's no problem point is to that that there's no need to stay the injunction in this case to do that and the fundamental reason is because there is a process for everything the last time finra suggested to alpine that it was going to seek disqualification al came to the commission and said we need to stay that and the and the commissioner greet the answer to our points concerns about what happens in those separate regulatory proceedings are to be addressed in those regulatory proceedings not by staying the expedited appeal means give us less than briefing it just means do it faster but this is not a new issue this is been kicking around for a while that's correct your honor and if alpine were to actually file a motion to expedite it so that we could respond and take into account their actual an actual argument and respond to it we might be able to reach some sort of agreement again my adversary noted that the holidays are coming up so that's something that would have to factor in but again there's no motion on the table to expedite it and we haven't been given an opportunity to