proposed expired long before they had any reason to intervene and that's largely because of the slow pace with which the underlying litigation is proceed from initiation insult a denial of class certification was a period of eight years four rule twenty four and also your honor we had a court appointed committee with lawyers who were representing from the beginning of the case from their involvement that they were asserting my client's cla and they were being told that they adequately represent my client's interests and in fact even after all six chairman sent out the communication saying they needed to seek counsel in order to pursue their claims those six outside counsel still denied that we posted that  hearings are required to protect your client's interests and some other lawyers deciding that maybe they aren't able to represent your interest doesn't really change that dynamic so your honor owes it was publicly representing that it was a claims and then continued to do so even after it was called into question our clients didn't have counsel in connection with the underlying lawsuits intil over six chairman encourage them to seek outside counsel to protect their individual interests in terms of whether the clock should run from the denial class certification or from this comporting communication we believe it should run from the conflicting osa communication however determines what's timely and what's not however at that time at that time your honor the cluster was denied the court entered a scheduling order and in that scheduling order provided the parties with two years to prepare the case between the time last cert was denied and the time that my client's moved intervening the only discovered that it had happened in that period of time was documents and it was document discovery of the stamp or the state of the defendant thousand and twenty one at the time we moved to intervene there had been no back deposition taken the dispositive motion deadline was still up in the future and there's still the same amount of time regardless of which event the court were to look at in determining timeliness which at the court the court is aware there are no bright line awards for the court music and so that the polity of the circumstances this is certainly a case that involves unusual and the critical distinction between the facts of our case in that case is in that case the plaintiffs appellant had filed a separate lawsuit which created policy issues that are opinion and that necessarily is that those those plaintiffs were trying to jump the queue because they could have gotten to judgment before it got to judgment in a case against the same defendants that's not the receiver and the creator of the right to file an ancillary suit to recover that money the distinction your honor is between what is property of the stamp of state and what is the property of my clients and in that case the receiver was pursuing property of the state and the court found that they had jurisdiction to enter a bar order to stop the individual investors for consuming their own claims didn't attempt to address the issue of adequacy of representation and if you take this logic to its extreme i think what you end up with is a situation where district courts but interpret the court's decision as mean when there's a r trying to jump the queue we were trying to get our planes on board and to save them from being barred by the statute of propose the other unique circumstance your course the length of time that this case would pending as a few did a class action those facts didn't exist four in the case bonds were pretty good the burden is is minimal to prove inadequate representation and we don't have to prove that they don't adequately represent it represent us we have to prove that they may not adequately represent your argument the same a then compare that to a conspiracy point for a conspiracy playing we would have to prove a meeting of the minds which is in the force a difficult route for its e s a claim we rarely have to show that they the defendants acted with reckless disregard there's also but my clients who own the claims didn't assign the claim and the court can't create article three standing by the stroke of a pen  standing to pursue my client's individual claims and because of that they cannot adequately represent them in this action the bank defendants have already said both below and here that they intend to seek to to bar those planes based on mostly lack of standing back that has not has opposed our intervention despite that shows they don't share the same ultimate objective and there's a some basic statistics that are really relevant to both of the issues that i'm going to discuss today at was seeing representation and in prejudiced if the intervention were allowed to go forward and they've been they've been discussed by this court orders and that is that the number of investors that are represented by six in this case are eight hundred thousand plus this case has been going on for eleven percent of the total number of investors who are involved in this action as a receivership court and a receiver it minister tace on behalf of the entities and i think that those are very important because when you get into some of the questions and judge davis and this is what's unique about the mendez interveners the question is nothing nothing is unique about them and as interveners a one million me ask you about one of the  claimed that the banks failed stanford commit fraud against the city investors is really the claim of an individual investor it seems like most of the grease say that the receiver six can represent more or less class claims even though this is not a class action but individual claims separate claims of both would be claimants likely in a minute or interveners cannot be represented is that are you saying if i understood what that states and the email i'm talking about is that what you would represent to be the position your client has had all along that these individual claims of creditors is what the problem is and we have never investors committee prosecuting the claims of the individual investors in to answer your question in response to some of the comments of counsel made only rulings that are in place directly on the issue of six separate capacity to assert claims on behalf of its constituents the individual investors were made by judge god be back in two thousand and twelve when he specifically said that they had the ability to assert fraudulent transfer claims on the part of individual justice and again in two thousand and fifteen when he reiterated that position so it is six position that with respect to the claims that it is prosecuting in this case did both as the as the of the receiver and on behalf of the investor that it can obtain a complete in full recovery against these banks in if that recovery is obtained in the issues that are being asserted by the intervene is a matter of case management progressing this litigation on behalf of the eighteen thousand best is now being asked more specific we've talked about texas securities act with your friend my screen above you on the display but wherever he is of yours can you bring those claims that these various banks were aware of what stanford was up to and assisted him knowingly in doing so as a meeting of the minds of whether it's and on its surface you may not think that that have a tremendous amount of relevancy to an appeal to rule twenty four dollars intervention but i think it does because it recognizes the fundamental concepts of the  of the receivership court in what it does is it talks about objectors trying to jump the queue in trying to interrupt the equitable inconsistent approach and distribution of in that point eight percent of the mynd as interveners share a common purpose and that common purpose under rule twenty four dollars is to maximize a recovery against the banks because we just got to his health in with this court reaffirm in so that's with this aspect of this litigation taken bit by bit at a time by just god he is seeking to accomplish and this is the largest potentially recovery on behalf of the individual investors coming up with these banks i mean opposing counsel talked about the length of the duration but there were other focuses of that litigation and there were other recovery sequenced insurers against brokers against law firms against a whole slew of other defendants in which the receivership made recoveries now  just so this next phase i mean this is the way the judge got be phased out we fear because of his trial management decisions whether you like them or not with your because you're right now and when you look back to you know the lifting of the state deny class certification in the beginning of discovery mean why weren't the mendez interveners if this g s a claim was so special and so important why were they asserting the claim back in two thousand and seventeen or two thousand and eighteen i mean where we stand and this gets into the prejudice point because we are literally after eleven years for eighteen thousand and bester is on the verge of something here we've met these deadlines we've met the deadlines through kogut we've met the fact discovery file that is the motions we have until january th of motion a remain and has already been filed to send the case back to the southern district of texas so the architecture is set up to get these victims these investors all eighteen thousand of them to be in the position that they've long sought to be and to allow an intervention by point eight percent of this class who are going to get the same i mean what i did hear opposing counsel say is is if we make a risk if it makes a recovery against the banks in there is a distribution that his clients are not going to accept their distribution because they want to prosecute their intervener clones so much he didn't say that because we know that's not going to happen it hasn't happened in the past with objectors and it's not going to happen in this case our interests are a ligned there is absolutely no proof no evidence no argument that we're in collusion or there's a versity which is what the standard is under it was a representation in the circuit there is none and the issue when you really get down to certified there's never been across a notice of appeal so to the extent it in ten minutes or so we're engaged in a free for all we would ask that the coup or reject that and i it not allow society general to argue jurisdiction because impacted by that it doesn't just moved out the intervention it has a direct impact on her eighteen thousand investors who represent  questions about the on that i would like to really address the timeliness issue which i believe is the easiest and simplest way to dispose of this bill timeliness is an element that is reviewed because the district court made findings on it for abuse of discretion so it is an abuse of discretion stephen deciding whether the district court abused its discretion on the timeliness it's important to look at the appellants arguments that they actually made in their moving papers to the district court these april two thousand nine hundred letters from lawyers constituted to triggering event constituted unusual circumstances where had any effect on timeliness whatsoever their only timeliness arguments were about the court's denial of class or mandatory intervention what we look at is what arises and as of the time that intervention should have happened and not going back to the beginning of the case and all that's happened before that you except that and you can move my premises for that or why there actually is predators well there's i guess two forms of prejudice i'd like to address the the st is the present is so sick or the opponents are arguing in their papers is that their claim is go time barred by a five year statute of repose in my view is they can't the statute to repose is run they can't revive it by intervening in the case but if they can then that would work tremendous prejudice to the trumped in circumvented by allowing intervention but with respect to the nd form of prejudice which is really arising from the doorway and with us here we're at a point where for my client our our witnesses are retiring they're  though to the extent those things could have been occurring anywhere at all really talking about what's different about their innovating or trying to a may of two thousand and ninety versus intervening in two thousand and seventeen your witnesses on that much older in that eighteen months not the right time period to be looking at it isn't the issues like that the relevancy of them up lies to when they sought to intervene which was a year ago but if they had attempted to intervene right when class certification was denied they would still have the problem with the statue to rip so we would be prejudiced if they could intervene in revive us to do repose but with respect to the discovery we could have at least started the motion to dismiss briefing and we could have at least served document requests because the court has ruled in deny class or vacation the individual eyes issues predominate over common issues with respect to investor claims so we certainly could have got out written discover each of the one thousand five hundred dollars investors and were attempting to intervene in the hedge funds and started that process eighteen months earlier than then we could have other so yes he didn't even that created a door yes it is very concerned that this court might address the question of jurisdictions us into plea but here we have raised it as an issue that goes to what would be required for the court to address the jurisdiction with respect to one hundred and forty seven or at the time the trial court decided this motion nine hundred and sixty five proposed intervenors and i happened to rest of those the difference between one hundred and one quarter  very interesting lee your honor the other group of intervenors was represented by fishman haygood who are here in front of the court today representing osa and they refile their case they found a new case in houston interjected the two thousand and fourteen order as a basis that the court would not have to revisit personal jurisdiction our argument on appeal is that that is wrong and appropriate for this court to address in the context of the intervention for two reasons since that order this court and in fact it would just stop with you or you may have joined of the mountain in this court has addressed a number of cases that have made it clear that without an analysis of who initiated those contacts they are insufficient under prevailing circuit case law to find a specific jurisdiction even if though this court didn't address the propriety of the two thousand and fourteen order in the context of what would be required to litigate the interventions the juristic over the claims of these one hundred and forty seven or nine hundred and sixty five interveners the court still would look at what's different about these interveners even if you thought you couldn't look at that twenty working order you would still say these claims are are number one brought majority by a majority of plaintiffs who do not live in texas and part of judge god these original order was that there were investors harmed in texas but more than two thirds of the proposed intervenors are not texas cell or even take in the funds from cd investors and so it's both a different analysis and the twenty four thousand dollars order is wrong on its face in light of prevailing case law and that's the argument that we're lay no one had taken his governor about each of these proposed intervenors and the circumstances of their purchases and we would unquestionably be entitled to take that discovery and the banks to have been in this court for eleven years and as i was raised in the motion to strike frankly we've asked judge gobby to allow us to bring the jurisdictional issue directly to this court those stickers opposed it and they are concerned that there will be an issues have no bearing on this appeal or wasn't it's really putting the cart before the horse as it relates to my clients my clients were not allowed to intervene and therefore their time for filing a rule twelve motion to raise these issues never occurred therefore it was not before the district court and couldn't have been a basis for the court's decision alone we just think it's they lost the opportunity to appeal that they asked for permission they weren't given it and now they're just trying to include here which we don't think is appropriate your honor as i think it's important that the court understand just how limited the investors recovery in this stamp are to say has been to this point they've recovered approximately five cents on the dollar compare that to bernie made also investors who recovered upwards of zero dollars eighty cents on the dollar and they've been waiting for over eleven years the idea that  somehow use my client's claims t s a claims and particular to increase the amount of that settlement or increase the amount of judgment presupposes that they have standing to assert those claims which they do not and in fact  mr miller's firm fischman haygood as was pointed out a moment ago on the same day that my clients moved to intervene in may of two thousand one hundred days also moved intervene on behalf of nine hundred individual stanford investors asserting the very same claims that my clients asserted they were there as was also denied and they chose to file a separate action which we don't think is the way to preserve the claims however they now twice have filed claims that indicate that o representing here does not adequately represent the interests of individuals or individual investors if it's true for their clients it's also true for the of no moment now that being the case just as we represented to the court below we've always said that we would let take the lead we would take a back seat we simply want to have our claims on board especially in the event that they choose to negotiate a settlement with the apple e bank dependents because it's clear the bank defendants aren't going to find any value to my client's claims unless they are properly in the case they're not going to see them as a threat democratic senatorial campaign commission and specifically included apparent that a call that says a federal equity receiver has standing to assert only the claims of the entities in receivership and not the claims of entities best for creditors