allowed at least at this point in time as a matter of law creditors clearly have the right to file an appeal from an order that affects a bankruptcy estate and that's what these consolidated appeals concern now with respect to april s the creditors they have similar due process issues with respect to the orders of feb twenty seventh on march seventh two thousand and three and that was fully noticed a creditor shonar the the problem was once the of the the control of the debtor approximately two and a half weeks before the bankruptcy was filed one of the motions that was before the court on april twenty fifth was a violation of same motions because he was trying to get back in possession of and judge roberts tonight about so out this or stern was not able to get the paperwork necessary to prepare a proper list of twenty customers so you're saying that the record would disclose that there were people who were among the twenty largest who were on the list oh yes absolutely but that was the twenty largest wasn't even the correct list of twenty largest you're on it well that's what i'm trying to find out from you you're saying that the list was incorrect right and who called him on your client should have been on the list it wasn't the  one of the trade of columns i'm not sure which one heller held a claim of five hundred fifty thousand that was filed in march of two thousand and three and you know the problem is not just who got the notice of the initial hearing it was once a compromise was reached under four thousand one of the roles of bankruptcy procedure i knew no this should have been sent out were guarding that compromise to whom all creditors at that point under rule nine thousand one nine  four thousand one d four would have allowed the judge to dispense with that requirement that he made no ruling in that regard on why no further hearing was required just didn't have a further harry and this was a very complicated settlement that went on the court's informed hearing on april twenty fourth two thousand and two and then a notice i'm hearing should have gone out on approval of that compromise so that all creditors had a chance to object nobody was told about that compromise except because even though he was there and agreed to it somehow he's been harmed who else among your clients was harmed by not being there all the rest of them because because of the debt or one hundred thirty million dollar company was dismantled as a result of that hearing and none of the other proceed without adversary proceedings which was trying to recover assets for the estate mr stern no longer control the proceedings now the next hearing that occurred which is subject to the appeal is the one that occurred on february twenty sixth two let me ask you this if i understand your main arguments why the the first proposal to fifty was not adequately milliners ok you may be right it might have but assuming that you're not just for the sake of discussion if everything was correct with regard to correctly that you were arguing that if there had been full notice that somebody may have come in and provided more assets that would have helped your client the client be better off is that what you're arguing your honor that's absolutely the case and ok one of the one of the objections is raised that the the trade appellants never show that they were willing and able to pay more money where the problem was they weren't given an opportunity to do that there was a notice to them well in all of these proceedings that have gone on since has there been any shelling of how who would have come in and done what if they'd had notice of that first proceeding  until we've gone through exhaustively and say sure that every possible person has received notice of this because that that i just can't be right well one of the one of the ways to look at the answer to that question is what was the urgency of getting things done a week later the rest of the bifurcated contract it's approved again without foremothers to the creditors so there's no notice at all least i'm sort of wholesale there was one day's notice you have to give creditors an opportunity to know in my opinion danced around the issue of due process on april twenty fifth about basically saddle mr starr and reed and it was a pro what about all the other pounds on the orders that were entered on her board twenty seven two thousand and three and march that were later sold and that was one part of the court's mistake on the abandonment the other part of the court's mistake was mr stern had advocated abandonment of these claims several months before because the estate didn't have the money to pursue money to pursue stern no no your honor the claims against mr stern and related parties were sold to arnold klein and under the settlement that was approved under which we order entered march seventh to march seven license to use the trademarks could never successfully action the bankruptcy case because it couldn't assume that license agreement under the cattle decision of the circuit at best it had under its agreement with terrorist six months to liquidate the collateral that was licensed collateral it write off write a sell off right that's all that remained of this company before it was going to have to be liquidated under ninth circuit law that would allow a restructuring and a sense of that license now we get to the hearing within a week of the banks a case being filed and  hours on agreements reached mr stern says ca cheney you can foreclose on the collateral area says i'll tell you what you can start to the termination of our trademark we need to go back and revive the value of our trademark by getting back in the business of manufacturing goods under our trademark as you screw got up so they agree to buy back the goods that exist and maximum value of the assets is going to be attainable because now they're going to have a lawful exercise of going out of business through adam's apparel that's why they're a party give me money to fight against each other that i'm going to abandon all this pride because we don't have any money and i don't know how to get value for this other than just sitting here sticking my feet in the mire so he notices i'm going to vandeman and he convinces our clients perished shiite the army to agree to what was noticed so now we get to the hearing this is the first things i thought were twenty six and where they're in judge and i thought hearing counsel for mr stern advocate strongly says look i want to buy claims against terrorist and see i be honest better i'm done this is the deal it's a compromise i want to be approved as a compromise mickey thompson says when you're going to release it back and forth it's not a sale to compromise but judge roberts says you know what i want to give mr stern a chance because money from the devil still money says i'm going to give this guy a chance whether you like it or not this side of the table to to offer an alternative compromise that he couldn't build on the sale understand because we're arius essiac you're getting released and putting up cash and they're pursuing the start of the t v certainly stern is not going to pursue himself so he would have to offer an alternative compromise by which he would agree to pursue c i t an heiress and get a release for the stern and that he's which might have dramatically different value in fact they did so i was coun trustee saying i don't the court that i know what schedule a court sat but i don't have any respect for any of that i'm going to make my own bad here's my bad i'm not going to give you any number of numbers fundable deposit money i'm holding the money in my pocket or the trustee quite rightly decides he's going to put at risk the process was what was obtained when i when you get here when i think of the issue in your bankruptcy lawyer like i am you want to deal with the legal issues but most of the time by the time you get here it's both and that's true here because stern abandon the stay he substantial expense in pursuing this starting to tease so stern's playing defense on that litigation now the trustee you know there's also a day has gone for to administer the bankruptcy cases got approval expenses and paid those off to third parties that is we've all acted appeal came to the ninth circuit the first of the trustee has dispersed monies to his professionals which are third parties and not parties to this appeal second the trade the trademarks have been sold to a third party  dismissed with prejudice the pending lawsuit that mr stern it filed prior to the trustee being appointed that was required by the settlement agreement that was entered into and the trustee took affirmative action to dismiss that lawsuit with prejudice and the final thing is that mr the trustee if there's any monies to be found will get additional monies meaning that the compromise that was noticed to all the creditors and sent out not only provided for the payment of two hundred fifty thousand dollars not only provided for the release  arest the i c or the trustee expected to come in and bid these causes of action meaning throughout this whole proceeding it was stern errors and c i t when they when they complained of the trade creditors may have come forward and bid they receive fifty thousand dollars the very short time period was reached by the court given mr stern's conduct about the case he had made representations throughout that he had the money that he had the where with all and when the trustee said put up or shut up mr never put up the court gave him an additional two days to put up that money and he never filed the court's instructions as where to deposit and it was only after not receiving those monies that the trustee lodged the order which way to the march seventh two thousand and three order due process was matched and these orders every creditor was served the result out of the every twenty six hearing was substantially in compliance with what was notice the material so and if he had tendered enough money to buy anything it might have been necessary to make some notice of the say it may have been but it was wholly depended on him take that first step now from your perspective entertainment case which is the ninth circuit that decision two thousand and three says when you take a settlement and you change it into a sale there's no going back counsel is incorrect that the settlement continued to be a settlement it changed to