appeal the discovery or the disk the district court we contend abused its discretion with this particular post judgement discovery order and in turn rewarded data treasury corporation f repeated concealed breaches of a contract containing the most favored licensee provision and permitted the company in one fell swoop by virtue of this two page discovery or to shield various accountings transfers and cash dispositions and permitted it to hide to disappear this dissipation excuse me of a half of a billion dollars in revenue while it was in breach of this most favored licensee provision the prior court rulings including most importantly a thirty page ruling from this court the fifth circuit concluded that the treasury had since the two thousand and five x accusing of this agreement with j p morgan had an affirmative automatic obligation to do two things one was to notify j p morgan of any favorable subsequent licenses which it failed to do and two to refund j p morgan chase the difference in the lump sum license payment that it agreed to in its two thousand and five agreement and any subsequent agreement the fifth circuit and the original sitting district judge found but what are you looking for going to help you judge what we're looking to go back to the first breach of the n f l which was written in the opinions as the n c r corporation breach in january two have a judgment with which focuses on the one breach right we have the judge one contract we have a judgment that's determined that the damage calculations based upon the cathay breach in october of two thousand and twelve but both your hon lawsuit oh we we know there are other creatures that that's been the side of the question is it is whether the company engaged in transfers that could be attacked and dividends that could be attacked and this is where the logic that i'm not sure you know i don't have the same kind of it's not a bankruptcy matter you know necessarily pull the money back here are fraudulent transfer lost specially actual actual fraudulent transfer law and under the state of texas provides for a one year discovery world after finding out about transfers did discover that was provided to us after june two thousand and eleven this arbitrary date that they selected that they said we're not going to give you anything prior to june two thousand and eleven but the documents at the june two thousand and eleven show over thirty million transfers to insiders and approximately over seventeen million of dividends paid primarily to insiders so who are we going to go after the transferees judge insiders who decided to launch their own pocket rather than to reserve or liability the insiders who decided rather than to notify j p morgan that it was entering into more favorable licensing terms rather kept cashing j p morgan's license payment check we're going to go after the insider companies who received favorable transfers so we have the right we respectfully there are no limitations judge and that is because we don't know that they decided to treasury decided we're not going to tell you or give you a single piece of paper prior to june two thousand and eleven so it's in may of two thousand and eleven they transferred one hundred fifty million dollars to their insiders we don't know that right now but as soon as they disclose those details and we have an ability to analyze those documents and that information we'd have the right to bring a claim and what we're this court and why we're asking this court to reverse the discovery of water is because my client should have the right to see that my client should have the right to analyze that my client should have the right to  a claim exists and let then then attack those claims and what's so disingenuous about what was argued to the district court and mind you do your honors this is the third district judge that was on the case the first district judge retired the second district judge recused himself on him and this was the third district judge we had a lot of briefs in conferences and then ultimately the court said you know what file of discovery motion on this point disingenuous thing about that is david treasury came forth unsaid as judge praises us and what isn't isn't this judgment on a credit kidded on kathy bank and at the surface you say yes the damages are calculated but what did  they throw it out because it's a statue of limitations claim why they did treasury says because we first breached years ago so when we look at what they're hard bring to this very court and the prior appeal the stand we breached we breach just months after we agreed with you we didn't tell you about it we kept taking your money and now we're not going to give you any of the details of the cla liability ruling the two thousand and fourteen liability ruling dealt with the why the initial it said the n f l provision is self executing and basically did a treasury you have the what we asked for were the general ledgers we want the books and records of the company which they had general ledgers that they gave us after june two thousand and eleven we want to see where money went we know that close to six hundred million dollars was paid to this company arbitrary especially in light of the prior court rulings the law of the case which they're looking to just offend and ignore that the claimant was self self executing so your honor we're asking for the financial records the books and records the eleven the litigation was commence i believe in november of two thousand and twelve much discussion was going on between then during the course of a geisha and many questions were asked about financial status and they said not part of the case will deal with the post judgment and once that judgment was entered the requests for almost immediately sent and we've been trying to get these documents ever since the judgment the judgment has been handed and when you look at the district court's order that just a court order doesn't deal with any of this it doesn't deal with the prior fifth circuit ruling it doesn't deal with the two thousand and fourteen or fifteen district court rulings it doesn't even go into any type of analysis of the discovery requests it doesn't go into proportion are pretty much out of business right and that is right and they did do that interaction with a number of related companies that have similar ownership that we're hoping to learn more about with the very discovery that we're seeking prejean in two thousand and eleven with remains that they entered into with these related companies that have similar ownership but we've been precluded from doing so but judge even if it was up even if it was a natural wind up of this company this district court opinion basically absolved status treasury from any wrong for conduct with respect to its finances pre june two thousand and eleven so it if if it was it let's say it was negotiating the cafe bank license agreement in early two thousand and eleven and they came up with a plan that hey we're going to spirit out of this company we're going to we're going to make the company transfer as much cash out as we possibly can to avoid this j p morgan creditor cl because again it knew that it had this refund obligation to us insisted if there's a press release that was signed back in zero five that was released by virtue of data treasury's present where the most favored licensee provision is specifically it either acquired or that a fall for including things like bio metrics and other types of technologies that it was pursuing and researching and the various insiders of the company a from day to treasury but were the bulk of the question i should say the bulk of the employees is really your own hundreds of millions of dollars transfer money out and they may face liability but what they shouldn't do or be able to do is to hide behind it the sculpturing wanted to avoid that scrutiny my client should have the right if you got analysis thank you broad discretion discretion to the trial courts to resolve for the very reason that they tend to be very fact intensive they tend to involve disputes that are long running before the court with which the lower courts have the most familiar in fact other than maybe questions such as the credibility of witnesses or other similar types of of matters this is one of the areas in which this course gives the widest leeway to district courts to make determinations on a day to day business because these represented below by lawyers from the tallest of the tall towers in new york skadden arps measured by revenues skadden arps is the second largest firm in the united states and it is the twelfth largest law firm in the united states by number of attorneys it employs some of the brightest minds that we have in our profession now why does that matter it matters because the question that's presented in this appeal at root is whether j p m c today must live with the very astute and clever litigation strategy that it selected below implemented and deployed to its significant advantage what was that strategy the strategy was to cut off data treasury at the knees with respect to its statute of limitations defense by expressly unambiguously repeatedly in writing orally at the district court before a different panel of this court over and over again telling anyone that would listen that it's liability case not its damages case it's a liability case for breach of contract against my client data treasury was premised on the october two thousand and twelve cath trying to answer before and i convinced one of the three judges that i had the better of her argument but unfortunately it takes it takes at least two so you're out of the way that shook out if you still would like to know the answer is that what was determined was that it was up to j p and c and it could pick and choose from among all the different terms and all the different licenses which one it liked best was automatically entitled to those and it did that it did that when a fire when it filed a motion for summary judgment in front of the district court after it already had in hand sixty licenses with a big wide universe of choices from which it could elect and brought a motion for judgment on liability not not on the amount of damages but on liability and as to our affirmative defenses that the one you wanted out of that whole universe was the october two thousand and twelve cathay bank license i think it's important to tell the truth up here and i just feel that this briefing and the oral argument that's been heard includes some dissembling because it is crystal clear that it was liability that they were going for with respect to the cathay bank license as the court's well aware the standard of review here is whether or not the district court used or based its decision on some arbitrary or clearly under reasonable basis for the argument that the company out of wasting  yes and i want to speak i think what your honour's question goes to a little bit is is is this fair are the equities of what's happening in this case fair or not and when i listened to my opposing counsel stardom and that seemed to be the thrust of where he was going that it's not fair what happened to us here and throughout the briefing throughout the proceedings below there's been a lot of accusations leveled against my client of course by implication the lawyers that represented the client that there was m tarrier motives in not making those disclosures of the licenses to j p morgan chase during the timeframe when those were being in but the bottom line is that j p m c and data treasury viewed that most favored licensee clause to a very different lands and had very different i believe on both sides earnestly and sincerely held differences about what it meant and what it required and so there was no cover up or gee let's get all the money out the door before they can get it type of situation here and it's unfortunate that out that that allegation keeps getting made because what data treasury believed was that unless it entered into a license that was for with an equivalent mega bank like j p morgan chase for an equivalent amount of use of its patented technology that the most favored licensee clause didn't even come into play no we lost that point we lost that but it's because i believe that's what the the applicable precedent says is an appropriate fact is at the very far reaches of an appropriate look back to period to see what would be what would be  conveyance that my marriage further review and with respect to the court's comment about the wasting nature of the asset i think absolutely dead or treasury had shareholders and they wanted to make hay while the sun was shining and get as many licenses and as much money from those licenses as they possibly could in addition what ultimately killed that a treasury was going to keep that money sure sure nationally but you know  discovered here to the extent that it makes a difference the awareness by data treasury that there was a difference of opinion between the parties are still what that most favored licensee cause menton required came about in in the summer of two thousand and eleven which is how far back the district court allowed for discovery to to go to that the cathay bank license was not the marker for liability in the case and it's reply brief i went back and dug through the record to find a few other what i think are relevant considerations like to bring to the court attention for instance we already told you about how in their motion for summary judgment right there on the first page they said we're limiting ourselves to the cathay bank license but they doubled down on that election in their reply brief asked their motion for summary judgment and that's in the record on appeal at six four one nine three six four three one and the entire reply brief premises their liability case on the cathay license from the first page to the last and then if anyone still could have had any doubt that that was the case they also filed a response to the motion for partial summary judgment that we filed on the statute of limitations defense and that's in the record on appeal at five one nine one five two one zero and in that brief this is what jay p m c said about the cathay license quote there is no question that j p emcees claim based on the two thousand and twelve cathay license was asserted within the four year statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract claims and then they went on to say this this court does not need to consider data treasury's motion for partial summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations because it expressly does not apply to the subsequent license containing the more favorable pricing term the j p m c seeks the benefit in its motion for summary judgment so what that means your honor says that when j p m c now comes along and it pertains to this court that it got a raw deal from the district court and about the post discovery because its liability case was in fact premised on breaches earlier than two thousand and twelve it's simply not being straight with you it's playing fast and loose with the fact this case went all the way up to the brink of trial here's another way we know that they're not telling you the truth they filed motions in limine name asking the district court that was about to preside over the trial in this case to do to bar data treasury from even referring to or eliciting testimony about any license other than the october two thousand and twelve cathay bank license because it would be irrelevant because they pinned their breach of contracts liability case to that october two thousand and twelve cathay license they said that we should not be permissibly are going to able to argue or person in a trial anything quote aside from limited facts needed to apply the ca formula and in the transcript of their hearing before judge snyder one of the three district court judges whom they repeatedly maligned throughout their briefing cast aspersions on because they had the data treasuries lawyer does not argue the cathay license which is the only one in issue here and quote and that's on the record on appeal from six eleven to six forty eight that particular transcript another point i think bears no in a breach of contract case the damages analysis is necessarily going to flow from the breach right so liability leads to damages j p n c's counsel finally gets around to mentioning the cathay bank license for the first time in opening brief to this court twenty pages into the twenty three pages of factual and procedural material in the opening brief and when it does it says that the cap a license quote was used as the benchmark for j p emcees damages award well that's true but it's also unremarkable because they pinned the liability case to the two thousand and twelve cathay license and so naturally contract damages are going to flow from that liability and j p mc does not explain to this court why if the breach of liability basis that it had selected had been something other than the cathay license it wouldn't have been obvious error for the parties in the district court below to go building the damages award on the cathay bank license in fact the record tells us that there were licenses for much less than the two hundred  judge will it makes a difference your honor because if they're right then there is a decent argument that the district court got it wrong in assessing the scope of discovery post judgment discovery that ought to be permitted relevance of that they do not need a day more than the one year and four months i'd look back period that the district court gave them and i'd submit that the district court would have been well within its discretion to get them given them a heck of a lot less scheduled because there was no the terminations as to damages and ultimately the party stipulated as mentioned but in the fifth circuit ruling you have on until huge twenty one the court cited that data treasury seems to be arguing that the emma folklores gave g p m see a single right to enforce no matter how many times data treasury breached data treasury points out that a first breach the clause more than four years ago when it entered into its first license with a third party on more favorable terms then with p m c and the fifth circuit said that nonsense you never even provided sufficient notice of it earlier of your earlier preaches as required by the cloths it goes on page twenty two to explain that data treasury claims that it detrimentally relied on th of the bank regarding its intent to sue when it used more than final payment to pay its ordinary operating expenses and then the court went on to say that's nonsense too because data treasury c e o testified that whole argument falls why even if they pick june two thousand and eleven or even if they pick kathy back the fortunately transfer law is just those alone allowed for in texas a four year lookback counsel stan