wait a minute let everyone get settled really because what you have here is mistakes all around you have the debt forced ten companies to file bankruptcy all interrelate of companies that did not list his license as a mass that you had selling trustees good faith people acting in good faith buyer to come into court and prove anything we pay money and we get the benefit of bankruptcy court orders on that point chapter seven only works of this court has repeatedly held because good faith buyers come in there and have faith that their sale will be uphill have faith that they will not become embroiled in litigation and that's exactly what happened to us instead of being protected by the bankruptcy we were in many respects humiliated by the bankruptcy court and blame for what happened here and that patent on a method patent for remotely dispensing pharmaceuticals it's really need that knowledge is the way with the future it is machines inside of prisons or nursing homes highly secure machines which remotely process dismissal of prejudice and part of the settlement was this license and the better system was called on site so my client again came in there purchased all of these that was related to one side now another principle of bankruptcy law in texas state court by the last and so we're still there had been no bankruptcy there had been no sale and a license or basically says we don't know who these people are even though no one knew about it by operation of law and therefore cannot be assumed and science and better support will many other things that this record on appeal ruled on one thing and one thing only the district court ruled that this was an executive a contract sometimes stuff happens i admitted i signed an order here to purported to commit to something assignment as an alternative remedy of what may have been an executor a contract that had been deemed project it won't that's just wrong and  relations in michigan or some court in california or some portland union in egypt and argues well we didn't have notice and therefore disorder is invalid it is not held up to process of law works you go to the issuing judge and you say yes you can judge your order is the bankruptcy case took form submitted no evidence at trial that he did not have notice of the bankruptcy case there was some evidence as far as the mailbox of that i'll talk to him about in a minute but took form never put on any evidence to submit or to to to evidence any kind of will sixty be analysis secondly as discord has killed a denial of due process requires prejudice you have to be prejudiced sometimes of course make mistakes and sometimes participants and or proceedings make mistakes but if it's a trivial err if it does not affect the property right if you are not prejudiced then then sawrey but no thought here this license is assign license is assignable we're garbus of whether it's an executive or a contract regardless of whatever else may have happened so if there was a violation of due process the bankruptcy court did nothing more than with the license for them so for those reasons your hono free sales there was a separate proceeding some time later where my client became embroiled in litigation with another secured creditor regarding the merits of our respective liens and we entered into a comprehensive settlement including with various other trustees mail under the mailbox rule that means that there's a presumption that it arrived and you cannot overcome that presumption by getting under the witness stand saying i didn't get it that has to be something border has to be well there was a fire there was a strike i had a because the secretary was told my mail an airplane went down with the u s mail you can't just say i didn't get the point being as a matter of law tech pharmacy got motion that motion contained with the settlement agreement that the bankruptcy court made a part of it to the bankruptcy court r p t them finally a brief in the bankruptcy court on the question of subject matter jurisdiction and said repeatedly to the bankruptcy court bankruptcy court interpret your own orders to find that we've acquired the license under any of those instruments or orders r p d'souza up and says well these orders transfer the way since it was that's fundamentally not true and it's fundamentally not true for several reasons we can start with the fact that as  both correctly concluded the license was rejected as a matter of law under section three sixty five do you want before any of these sailor orders or the seven order was entered there is no way under the bankruptcy repeatedly hope that when the contract is rejected under three sixty five of the bankruptcy it is removed from the bankruptcy estate the trustee lacks any control or authority over assets that are removed from the bankruptcy state and so when these orders and due process issues are raised below because it's fundamental in the bankruptcy code that contract karner parties are entitled to notice if their contracts are going to be as soon as signed simple six thousand six of the bankruptcy laws and so that's why the issue i want to talk a little bit about the settlement the settlement agreement was between between our two d and d called c e o rights and several trustees however none of the agreement are incorporated into the order and so if he says well look the bankruptcy court made a finding of fact that we got these that we got these licenses from these prior sailors a bankruptcy court probably rejected that ar in fact it was rather appalled at the notion of parties slipping current that it was into asset purchases agreements and then serving the something in corporations incorporating those facts into an order but there's an actual legal reason why this could never have happened and it's fairly simple in order for judge hauser to have found in this settlement order that her prior  it was a patent for the design of conveyor belts that were put on trucks it wasn't a patent for the method of putting the conveyor belt on the truck it was but the actual design of the conveyor belt itself wasn't and that the number two the issue  own document fails as a matter of me that's true it didn't but it's said that we are purchasing any other potential licenses related to on site judges on site is how the pharmaceuticals are dispensed this is a license any other potential license and the use of the word potential proves that the trustee like any good trustee and the buyer know of their or perhaps other assets and you want to encapsulate everything and issue number three can an unknown