i've had a substantive motions calendar with two cases and then a regular day calendar days your honor in seven days the delaware chancery court will make a determination with respect to appointing a trustee in this case the reason i stress this is because currently there is a corporate deadlock no one is in charge what we do but he has adjourned he has not adjourned the trial in fact he lambasted me and yelled at me this morning your honor yes well it happened he said he said it was outrageous what i did he couldn't believe that i wrote these papers the sunday before i filed and the tone of voice worries it was raised angered so with that said you know and the court and the court i have to say he's called this case his white whale so that has a lot of implications for someone who's actually read the book moby dick i have i don't know where we fall in that spectrum of the cacs cast of characters there but the the fact of the matter is that it within seven days we would have clarity on this issue a trustee would be appointed by the delaware chancery court take reins of this litigation provide some guidance for me i'm a former military person i believe i believe that there is something as authority and the chain of authority but in this particular case in this particular case because it was dissolved by the delaware chancery court as of as of september seventh of this year there is no one in charge of the litigation there's a structural gap here the federalists of the federal system is is a little bit in uncharted waters because in the middle of this five year litigation in the middle of this litigation what has occurred is that a dissolution proceeding has gone forward and as a result of the dissolution proceeding pio pro l l c is no longer a valid operating corporation under delaware law and it but the preexisting litigation that we're here for runs forward is that hamas will soon for the argument that you proceed with this matter before judge firman what's the prejudice exactly the prejudice in our hour was anything altered on the ground this is the key fundamental answer to that question your honor last week we had intensive settlement discussions magistr convene three separate conferences with all the parties we got all these different parties together we came close to an agreement but there was no one there to lead and shepherd it because they were in the could not agree on the essential terms that both were advocating meaning the two dissenting shareholders the two dissenting shareholders could not agree on an ultimate outcome with respect to the settlement agreement they did not if the trustee was appointed and when they will be appointed when they're appointed that person can basically break the deadlock create some guidance for the litigation settle the case and we all move forward it's a perfect setting it only needs seven days to happen but the court is inflexible i understand the court's praga i know that the mandate is to try cases that's what they do i understand that the court has said that but at some point in time there are equities involved that are transcend that i think this is one of them truthfully and there is a legal process to get to the point where the court should abstain for just a second here and in the in the in the frame of mind of what's happened the case if if so there could be resolution to a litigation that's been going on for carries project last well let me go back a little bit your honor this case is now we're only talking about damages we've already had a trial two years ago we had a liability trial that those issues were resolved we're only talking about damages now so the issue really is the trustee can basically he could broker a settlement agreement we could settle this case in my professional opinion this case should be settled it could be settled we came close to a settlement but the parties the two principal actors morning your honour's mr bidini or for skyline steel like to correct a couple of misstatements that counsel for proper made first of all he suggested that a trustee was going to be appointed in seven days that's not correct there is a hearing on the appointment of a trustee in the delaware chancery court scheduled in seven days he did not tell you that his client has opposed that appointment his client has opposed that appointment by saying that the movement has failed to show any corporate deadlock between the two so called dissenting shareholders mr ramos represented to this court that there could be no settlement because these two shareholders can't agree that's not what he told judge berman just last week just last week and this is exhibit c to our filings a the transcript of the final pretrial conference the issue of settlement came up because the judge firm is of course anxious to see this go away if he if he can resolve the case and mr ramos made it clear to judge firman that the imp settlement to settlement had nothing to do with disagreement by the shareholders it had to do with our client he blamed our client and that's fine we have broad shoulders but that has nothing to do with any purported dissent he said quote the impressions of the court that it may be an issue with respect to mr hinds that's one of the shareholders and mr went that's the other one going back many years as an impediment to to settlement i would just state for the court's understanding that that was not the impediment to a settlement it was more a vibe i lateral discussion between the parties here and then he goes on to say they were abruptly canceled by skyline he was given an opportunity to withdraw from this case on the basis of a purported dispute between the shareholders judge for him and said to him clearly look if these two shareholders can't agree on how this case should be defended perhaps i will entertain a withdrawal motion because that will put you in an impossible position he was given that opportunity he didn't take it he told judge firman in a joint letter that we both submitted that this case should go forward as scheduled at the pretrial conference on september twenty seventh and trial to commence on october third that is what he said he said it at in the joint letter he said at the pretrial conference he has never asked the district court for a stay of this case never and what would a stay accomplish under the delaware statutory scheme there these corporations even in dissolution are encouraged to continue to verdict so that so that creditors and potential creditors like my client can have their claims liquidated that's the delaware policy issue a stay here would not be in accordance with our policy it would be completely contrary to delaware policy and with respect to judge firman since he is not here to defend himself i would just like to say  that it's it's quite unusual i think for a practitioner in this region of the of the state to start out in the southern district of new york go up to the second circuit and return to the southern district of new york all in one morning and i'm hoping for that outcome judge firman did not indicate he was going to start the trial he knows what this court's order is he indicated which quite correctly that this court's order did not purport to stay pre trial proceedings and that's what we had this morning some more pretrial proceedings he did indicate however and he has told me i may represent this to the panel that he has a jury pool waiting and that he is fully prepared if this court should lift the stay to proceed to trial immediately after this argument the trial is estimated to last into next week given that monday is you one minute yes your honor and i will this case involves a long course of litigation not only in the united states in texas and delaware but also overseas in switzerland in another across the globe there frankly this case can be solved with the appointment of a trustee there is a deadlock whatever representations i made to judge berman last week changed because the situation is fluid there are two direct to stockholders of the corporation they are in conflict i spoke with the attorney representing the dissenting stockholder the minority stockholder and that attorney told me we cannot agree on anything except one thing one thing that you continue to represent pile pro in this proceeding to the extent possible but you do not have settlement authority and that's the problem if we don't have settlement authority then how can this case be resolved when the judge himself has said he wants the case to be resolved but his actions are not creating any flexibility or equity make that impossible it's untenable in this situation it should be the rational minds that make the decision whether this case should be settled all we think is seven days it can happen there will be a trustee appointed it's not a great inconvenience to the court the court took over a year to make substantive decisions and two years to reschedule the trial if we wait