number one seven one nine seven one a number one seven one nine seven to thank all popular de puerto rico at all and add a versus a judgment decision and then it's legal decision on the law the siegel issue in on its conclusions of law in both of those areas as i said the four there really only four creditors that are at issue here bankruptcy court correctly found that there were fifteen creditors on the day that this involuntary case was filed on november twenty second two thousand and six the official only take issue with the war and below in the bankruptcy what they didn't really even take issue for same with the claims of these four creditors with the exception of miami dade county and here today in a briefing this or even back away from that sole attack on these four creditors the purpose of the citing the proof we have to keep in mind that the burdens of proof in bankruptcy is satisfied in this context by the debtor presenting that list of one thousand and three shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner to the position creditors the burdens that exist under rule fifty six which is how we got here from the bankruptcy court was that it was incumbent upon the debtor to show facts that were not disputed and it was incumbent on the petitioning creditors to show the existence of the s records and then they are they are i would like why aren't we at that point like nine years ago i totally agree with your your honor and that's you're skipping ahead to where i intended to close but the procedur was the purpose of submitting the second circuit's the solution in my reading my rule twenty eight letter last week this is been a two party dispute all on the docket of this case reflects that here is eight hundred entries or so discovery squabbling about this position between two parties three if you count auto but it's an affiliate of the back row this is an example of the involuntary bankruptcy process being used in use of fashion years in two weeks this will be the twelve year anniversary of this case and all of the creditors have joined in this case despite having no notice and the opportunity to do so this is a case that should be dismissed because it did not result in a really this is an instance we're not enough control is exercised all the documents should have been adjudicated in six months or certainly an underage year and here we are twelve years later with the only parties that are seeking the definition cannot receive an avoidable preference because they would receive what they would otherwise get into liquidation it's also important to point out that miami dade county was the only evidence of that is in  record i believe it is that in the appendix of page three forty nine the barnhill decision by the supreme court he chooses that transfer under the bankruptcy code is on her until it's been honored by the bank and there's no evidence in the record that that truck was ever present at the bank or on her so we don't know whether it was on her and whether a transfer occur and when so based on that you're one of the you're on is the miami dade county decision the supreme court extinguished the special circumstances exception that the petition in creditors rely on even in the event there are fifteen creditors of twelve or in lobby siegel the supreme court in two thousand and fourteen in the was slightly different find facts that what was looking at the structure dismissal of the chapter eleven bankruptcy plan that provided for distributions that work with section five relying specifically on siegel the court said that  what equitable authority has always been that is not a roving writ and that is what the petition and creditors procedure the way i understand this issue in normal course is to proceed in bankruptcy court is that when he was in three years and then put someone into bankruptcy the debtor posts a list of his cr those who allege illegitimate creditors you know that list has it within twelve on it you're good to go you don't need a third but if that list has more than it's on it it seems to me as i understand it the burden then shifts party who initiated the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding to show that there are enough on that list who do not qualify just to get the number down under twelve and so you go when you talk to those creditors they won't talk to you subpoena although here they used one actually limit the list make your task earlier easier in my it's my understanding about how this process is supposed to work in correct that is the general point here i think it's very important eased your task by knocking things down to twenty four he's if you know if we could agree with you that by that filing which he did not have to make under normal procedures he waived his right to anyone other than those twenty four  he never made reference to the rule one through three one zero zero three b list rather he said i have this documents that show with my expert report that i have more than twelve freighters in fact and i think what i hear you saying is the other party that dr assumed the burden by filing papers that act as if he had  involuntary bankruptcy your was was filed and according to i'm going to answer your question based on it correct that what we just heard from counsel for the bank that the bankruptcy court informed the parties that it appeared at the bankruptcy court that the list had been withdrawn and then invited the submission of a new list i was not the speak to that but i believe you agree that if that happened that then you hang it out there without a list no because i disagree waters respect leave one because the court did not strike the prior list from the docket and there's not an order on the docket with roaring that i think he'll plead and it was it was further ratified reaffirmed by the expert's report that had twenty two creditors all of which with the exception of the bank appeared on the first one thousand and three but the fact remains your honor sorry that's right fish yet the fact remains is that the that the the initial pleading to shift the burden of proof found its way onto the docket it was modified through the fifty six environment it's not rule fifty six is not an assumption of the burden of proof simply because you are the moving party defendants routinely move with summary judgment to dispose of a case that the plaintiff this has weak evidence on it's a