along with mr burgess i'm the president of the company the sole question presented by this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute between creditors of a former debtor presented to the to your honor the actual agreement itself is clearly states in terms of who the operative parties are only the f d a and seahawk and they're the only signatory to the agreement the state is not a proceedings based on these facts i wish to emphasize to keep points first because this dispute between creditors could not have any effect upon an estate investor upsy it is outside the jurisdiction of bankruptcy court under twenty eight u s cities thirteen thirty four feet so the only other way the court could have had jurisdiction would be first proper retention of jurisdictions in or which also did not happen here focusing on the first issue of the effect on the bankruptcy of state the only potentially applicable jurisdiction is related to a case under title of and which estate in the other u s c three forty nine therefore there is no stake holding case in this circuit fights makes a similar point in fights this court found that a get or spouses cross claim against their lender was not related to the bankruptcy even though that claim was property of the state because it was community property i think it is cut in dry i mean i cited a long list of cases in my opening brief i believe it's footnote four that apply this rule when the when the bankruptcy has been dismissed or after confirmation and simply take this view in fights there was a discussion by the ninth circuit about how the party seeking jurisdiction tried to argue well we could go back and reopen the state and the court and no you know that's not enough there's no effect on the state so it's simply a very cut and dry point i mean we're here arguing it but it's just simply a case jurisdiction if it's not unless you tests so the leading authority rejects the various issues that you know the various ways to try to get back the stick is an underlying policy rationale for all the finality of judgment particular purpose whenever purpose is done go to a different court level concern that was on my mind that i was going to address to the state of alaska as counsel you may want to reserve more jurisdiction was retained over this agreement correct and the district court made a mistake correct and one last question it requires its own federal bankruptcy jurisdictional cases no independent basis for federal jurisdiction bankruptcy jurisdiction has been shown over that state law question colcannon establish the bright line rule for doing that settlement agreement into the order neither of those things were done here the stipulated dismissal order here recited prior approval of the settlement agreement and said the conditions of the settlement having been fulfilled the case  quote that an order based on the settlement agreement without more does not embody the settlement contract and is insufficient to create an ancillary jurisdiction close call of seventy federal thirty five thirty two dismissal in order for violation of the settlement agreement to amount to a violation of the court's order which is what culkin requires and that quote without a violation of the court's order there is no jurisdiction creates limited discretion to retain jurisdiction over an existing adversary proceeding at the time of dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy it is not applicable here first there was no action in bankruptcy a case where turds one eighty two dismissal as it is here that the the part is compliance with the terms of the agreement or the contract made maybe one of the terms that is set out in the order the terms of that settlement agreement was that the court would retain jurisdiction to determine the effect of this agreement if you know and it's a violation that settlement agreement that if there's a violation of that settlement agreement seahawk who requested the case filio and so i mean that is a potential down the line but the other thing that the seahawk seems to be arguing is that simply because there's no bankruptcy  the state tort cases or theory has not been approved yet by the state court i understand that but is that what they're asking for it's not clear they've asked for a friday night they basically claim that there's a fraudulent conveyance and even then there are other want to think that the  conspiracy claims that are before it's the scope of the settlement agreement that's the only issue here the fraudulent conveyance has nothing to do with it and even the bankruptcy court agreed they are that it was not here is the what does the it's very frustrating for us too but the intent was there the state would have entered into and approve the settlement if we didn't believe we were being dismissed and unfortunately we did not  name wasn't on the signature line in the settlement agreement but without us it would never have happened so we're clearly part of the whole picture the federal courts including the bankruptcy court have to find  in the bankruptcy court that that it would not i mean and what well i would if it's if the if this court agrees that the bankruptcy court had the right to retain jurisdiction yes then the state court action would would basically be i mean i would i would think the state court action would be over because the state courts both the superior court and supreme court have asked the bankruptcy court to determine the scope of the settlement agreement and based on the fact that the the i think the bankruptcy court wants to hear this i mean is there there are there to create and there is already it is is at issue here and the  the parties even though the parties technically can we say you court we change your stiction they agreed that the bankruptcy court was the best place to have any any kind of discussion of this point but again the  felt that under the four points of car that it was the most proper place for it to  by the debtor so but again i think the i think the taylor and frank and franklin cases they recognize the right of a distance of the bankruptcy court to basically determine the  yourself pointed out this order does not condition compliance on compliance with the condition dismissal in compliance with the terms it's merely a historical recital the next point made was that our principal claim is the conspiracy claim and it and it's against the the fraud and conspiracy claim against the state for damages now we can argue in state court over whether we satisfy the terms of this cause of action but that's still in terms of the effect on the estate there is no effect on v f d n a we've released vs the egg seahawk has no interest in going after vs your honor asked a question about fifty eight coming back to reopen the case the f d a has no interest in it it opposed to being joined when the state tried to join it because it's been released it has paid its money it's done and sea hawk is not going after the f d a it's honoring that settlement with the confirmation in order to rule that there's no jurisdiction it was a post confirmation case clearly this test applies post confirmation as a major part of its purpose the argument was made th is the one case perhaps going almost as far as the state wants to go but as a judge a person pointed out in that case it was a rising under the bankruptcy code the jurisdictional basis was under five or five of the bankruptcy code i see that my time is just i want to conclude by saying that there must be more then the near ghost of a past bankruptcy to afford the court jurisdiction and we