mr chief justice and may it please the court twenty eight us c section one hundred and fifty eight provides that district court shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final order of bankruptcy judges and heard in cases in proceedings refer court determined just for terms ago inboard versus blue hills bank the fact that an order disposes of a proceeding is not just but despite what responded and the government contends that test for determining finality that the words of the court slices the case to them rather and immediately appealable order is determined by considering the larger process that issue and whether the order is final by examining whether it alters the status quo and fixes the rights and obligations of the parties in board the relevant process was the plan confirmation process here the relevant process is the client adjudication or the claims allowance process under chapter five of the bankruptcy  order here did not resolve the larger process it did not alter the status quo nor did it fix the obligations of the parties on the contrary it simply continued the automatic stay so the underlying claim would proceed in  otherwise respondent and the government badly misperceive the role of the automatic stay in bankruptcy cases the automatic stay is not itself one of the substantive process of the bankruptcy it is a utility provision that supports the operation of these other processes in fact it was jackson who argued that rich since motion for relief triggered the claims education process claiming the stay in motion constituted an informal proof of cla such an order changes little and in the words of this court does not alter the status quo or fix the rights and obligations of the parties the reason this what appears to be a small mistake i believe is a very significant matter because it misunderstands the history of the bankruptcy jurisdictional framework but as i understand what you just said you're not contesting that this was a proceeding you're just saying it wasn't a final order in the proceeding is that right that's correct as this court noted in boehlert there is an endless number of contested matters many of which are not  when would it become final and the end of the case we would submit that it would become final under this court's test that when the status quo changed and when the rights and obligations of the parties were  well for example rule eight thousand to actually lays out a fascinating a very good framework for final orders because it determines what orders can not be extended in terms of timeframe the st under eight thousand and two d to a is the granting of the automatic stay cannot be extended but the denial of the automatic stay isn't mentioned the nd when the authorization of a sale under three hundred and sixty three for example the rd one the authorization of yes yes in this particular place at the end of the claim to education process it was the respondent that said that the claim to you to cation process was triggered by the motion to lift the stay ok at that point isn't the issue of whether there should have been relief from the stay moot no this court has recognized at least three different occasions that that is not an un reviewable decision that that is the decision as a result of a single appeal rule that has to be respected should have been relief from the stay so what does that do for the party who sought relief from the stay i think your argument has to be that undoes everything that happened right the bankruptcy is concluded and part of the bankruptcy is you're giving things up and depending on how much this person gets that person gets more and but now you say you've got to go back and start over with respect to one person's claim and i don't understand how you can unscramble that  but this is something the bankruptcy lawyers deal with every single day it can be done through a variety of matters but as a practical matter your honor given the length of the typical bankruptcy and the a length of the appeal it wouldn't be unscrambled before the bankruptcy process was entered ended in the st place as a practical matter as we cited to you in our reply brief in the footnote on page nineteen the average bankruptcy case is concluded in seven months the average appeal the st appeal takes nine months in this case the nd appeal took a little bit less time than that but so as a practical matter there is no such thing as undoing because whether you took the appeal at the moment that the stay relief was denied or at the moment that the claims adjudication process was ended you were still going to have an appeal that extended well beyond the planned confirmation process and that's why bankruptcy lawyers deal with this issue of claim contingency all the time and they work with reserves just like they did here and the parties agreed that they would not object to the plan on the condition that this appeal could go forward and there was a security set aside in the amount of four hundred thousand dollars now we don't believe that that's the entirety of our damages but that's the security the parties agreed to and if that less than if that's not enough to cover our damages and that's the risk that we took in agreeing to that claims to have the right if you choose not to waste your time in adjudicating this in bankruptcy court and choosing could you have chosen to appeal immediately after the injunction was denied your honor i missed the st part of your question assuming you wished not to incur the expense and kidding this in the bankruptcy proceeding could you have chosen at the time the injunction order denying the request to lift the stay was issued could you have appealed then so isn't that a different question since you accept the responsibility that you could have appealed isn't the issue whether you should have appealed and isn't there a split on that question among the circuits your honor because what you're basically saying is i didn't have to with respect your honor i believe that there are two very important reasons st of all it's not a matter of having to it's a matter of whether the court would have allowed us to under the interlocutory standard and given the environment that we were in we did not believe in interlocutory people would have been granted but more over your answering me know well you couldn't i don't know what you respect the question was could we have appealed theoretically we could have filed an interlocutory appeal as a practical matter that's only with leave of court and we did not and so it wasn't something automatically that we could do all with respect to the nd appeal the reality was the relationships between the parties were going to result in the nd substantive appeal the question is whether the court is going to compel the parties to appeal or whether the parties will be able to consolidate their appeals at the end of the discrete dispute is it the case that a creditor says to the bankruptcy judge judge i don't want to be here go lift the automatic stay and the judge says you're right now can the debtor appeal yes your honor ok if the debtor can appeal then why can't the creditor appeal if he reaches the opposite conclusion in both cases i imagine the immediate appeal is given because in many instances though certainly not all getting rid of a creditor or keeping your creditor will change in a pretty significant way the nature of the final plan now what have i said wrong with respect this court addressed that very issue and boehlert and the court said that confirmations of a plan change the status quo and set the rights and obligations of a party but denials while the parties continue to negotiate do not do that they don't do that well i know if we have a imagin case where a creditor who happens to make this motion has one hundred million dollars and everybody else taken all together has three dollars fifty cents ok now it seems to me that getting rid of that creditor would change the nature of the final plan is because the enormous change that might work in the nature of the plan in the if that's the reason the same thing is true when you do not know is that's what i'm getting as a question i'm not giving you an answer i wouldn't know what you think and under the bullard standard i do not believe th not change the status quo as this court said the stay remains in effect final does not determine the state of affairs i see so in better words in my case one hundred million dollars gone out of the estate three dollars fifty three cents left that didn't change anything  status quo was changed that it's not a final order because it doesn't in that substantive process if it's a three dollars fifty cents cent creditor that is otherwise excluded from the estate by the granting of the stay that's a final judgment with respect to that creditor if it's a million dollars creditor and that's denied the status quo is still not changed the status quo continues and that creditor continues within the bankruptcy process and i may have misunderstood the court's question i believe that it was an attempt at answer it does assume some facts and evidence that i'm more of an expert but will i would i would continue by suggesting that the government's character is ation of bankruptcy law is misunderstood not only does the government misunderstand the framework for the jurisdiction we have to we look back over two hundred years and how this court has looked at bankruptcy orders and recognized that in some cases some bankruptcy proceedings are different are treated differently and as a result of that certainly congress did not intend to change this and ninety three a year later congress fixed that problem with a very elegant solution in one hundred and fifty eight in one hundred and fifty eight they included the word proceeding to go back and recognize over the last two hundred years that there would be some proceedings in bankruptcy that would be final however they included a word a guardrail to ensure that that did not get out of control and that guardrail was the word final a word even the solicitor general recognized this finality requirement has significant has import it's not just the last order in the sequence it's not just the order that disposes of a motion for an extension of time it's not the order that disposes of a retention of professionals those are not matters that aren't being final those don't change the status quo those don't fix the rights and obligations of the parties nd of all i believe the government state is a proceeding why in order saying no i'm not granting what we from the proceeding is not final well as this court noted in boehlert there are literally countless numbers of proceedings and contested matters but it stretches the concept if anality to assume that the order that disposes of all those proceedings meets the qualification of what this court called and immediately appealable order the well so what if the order can change even the respond side of the case from the th circuit of page thirty eight of their brief where they talked about how the court had granted relief from the stay ten months later reconsidered if the st circuit in the atlas case  basis for their ruling because there were competing there was a st to file rule question between two district judges the st circuit said that order of the of the state relief isn't final things can change that would cause the puerto rican judge to decide that the virginia judge should go forward and at that point the bankruptcy court will have to once reconsider whether the stay applies whether the stay is final but the state by its very nature is fluid it's no different than the way this court analyze st the st requirement was that the issue be conclusively resolved and the court looked at that and said extension three months or months from now the district court may decide that the state court matter should go forward and so  cannot be a final order by definition because it doesn't conclusively resolve the issue now i would like to also point out that with respect to the injunction that is claimed here that's defeated by the very terms of the rule and sixty three c two c the code says that the and that the stay expires upon the discharge that's this that's that's something that this court recognized just last term lorenzo that there is a distinction between the automatic stay and the injunction there's no and even going back to sell a texan nine hundred and ninety five dollars there is no textual basis to believe that there is a permanent injunction with th a that by its very nature and even congress in the same legislative history that the government sites at mit is temporary and then finally i would argue that they're mistaken about the application of three  against the debtor now in this case we're seeking we thought really under three hundred and sixty two the one for cause we did not bring basically what was in in ram action or an action regarding a secured party court that those concepts are not applicable here what is critical here is that the respondent dragged the motion to lift the stay into the claims are due to cation process it was the responded who in responding to the motion to lift the stay objected as an informal proof of claim by objecting as an informal proof of claim the respondent is triggering the entire claim to dictation process and of course after that point submission of a claim five hundred and two objection five hundred and three the resolution of that claim by the court that is the broader substantive bankruptcy process that was resolved here but this court has never recognized that decisions about where to where to litigate are final orders when they're denied when they're granted that's one thing that changes the status quo that dismisses the case but when they are denied those are not final orders and finally i would also point out that the from a policy perspective the question here as the court looked in bullard the court noted that if the court had ruled otherwise it could possibly give the de or greater leverage over the creditors because the debtor could hold up the creditors with a threat of appeals that's the same dynamic applies here if you allow creditors or i should say if you force creditors to take appeals on early preliminary matters the definite definition of which is very it is impossible to define the limits of under the respondent suggested rules you're going to tilt the playing field with respect to those negotiations debtors are in bankruptcy for a reason they have limited resources and to allow or force creditors whose motions are denied i'm not talking about the motions that are granted that the exchange we had earlier but creditors whose motions are denied to immediately take those appeals is going to change the way the bankruptcy process works now i think that we've even seen that right now with the six most of the courts of appeals have ruled on well with respect your honor i believe that that rule is dated is based in most of those cases on an outdated anachronism under a former bankruptcy rule rule seven hundred and one the reality is the only two courts to have considered this in any detail within the last ten years has been the st circuit and that was three months after the ruling in the board this court in affirmed and the the other circuit i would submit their rulings are largely based and if you look at the majority of them over the last two decades it would be grants or denials in a very summary often in a footnote or and dicta as opposed to a careful analysis  in reality under the old bankrupt rule under seven hundred and one they had to file an adversarial proceeding in order to challenge the stay under the new bankruptcy rules under four thousand and one that's a contested matter it's not an adversarial proceeding bu filing an adversarial proceeding under rule seven hundred and one dollars there was often a claim for relief claim one just like a declaratory judgment action claim to breach of contract and in many of those cases the underlying merits were determined when the rules so it's understandable that courts in the eighty two dollars to eighty four dollars serka were deeming a motion to lift the stay in an adversarial proceeding context as a discrete substantive dispute between the parties that often resolve a discreet within that proceeding your theory under the bullard test is the relief from the state does not alter the status quo for the creditor your honor it doesn't alter the status quo for either one and why is that on the status quo i guess this might depend on how you define status quo but it's going to prevent the creditor from inforcing judgments and seizing property in the creditors going to lose money so i guess that depends on the status quo but they're going to have a fax now the status quo is is was was determined at the date of the filing of the bankruptcy right it was originally dating back to the filing of the bankruptcy and as escort noted in board when the plan confirmation was denied the state continued the status quo did not change what we're contending is nothing changed in the bankruptcy court i'm sorry thank you counsel appears the richardson has conceded that they stay relief motion and a notice to the debtor and a hearing on that motion constitutes a proceeding so the only issue now is whether or not that order issued by the bankruptcy court was indeed final with respect to finality this court can simply borrow the age old tradition of what finality means under section one thousand two hundred and ninety one of the judicial code and that is whether or not the order leaves nothing else to do except for execute upon the judgment in this case the decision the bankruptcy court made it very clear that upon entry of the order dismissing i'm sorry the order denying motion for relief from the automatic stay there was only one thing to do and that was to have the claims adjudication process happen within the bankruptcy case therefore that was a final decision that conclusively terminated the proceeding there was nothing left to do for the parties except to take the issues between the two the claims and the counterclaims and have them resolved by the bankruptcy court with nothing nothing left to do between the parties litigate the case that's correct your hon kind of a big part of the whole thing right in the important nuance there is there is nothing left to do with respect to the decision that denied stay relief certainly there was a going to have to be some negotiations possibly some litigation within the context of the bankruptcy case both respect to the stay relief motion that decision there was nothing left to do upon entry that decision to execute upon the judge's decision that all the claims adjudication would have to run through the bankruptcy case was a summary judgment fact that it's over in respect to the what the particular motion is about doesn't necessarily prove that it's a final judgment maybe there are other things that are denied a request to call a witness that is over in respect to witness calling case it's not a final decision you can appeal you see i mean that's i think the thrust of the question so that but i think we wanted you to hear in your honor i believe that to answer your question believe in the oral argument and bullard justice prior you had mentioned the fact that collier's identifies approximately forty seven dollars contested matters and so to the extent that someone is denied the opportunity to call a witness that wouldn't be proceeding being literal wise maybe you want to say something extra about why this is final and if you do i apologize for interrupting your two minutes opening so i at least will not  ask a question for the next two minutes habits are hard to break and i apologize your honor for the court of occasion i waive my right for any of the two minutes it's better has dissipated that's what you were doing yes your honor yes your honor so the question about finality is is whether or not any decision is final determines is determined by whether or not there's anything left to do except for execute out the real hurdle is whether or not it cost to the proceeding so certainly the claims adjudication process was going to be subsequent to the stay relief motion and that's the really proceeding however the finality of the stay relief order cannot be dictated by future proceeding that is going to result in litigation why not meaning what rights and point is that in the proceeding that's going on the issue of bad faith is going to be litigated and during that litigation the motion can be renewed to lift the stay and if you know part of or li stay so it's not final final in the sense of it's subject to renewable under changed circumstances so yes your honor there are two responses to your question the st one relates to the reason for the filing of a stately motion in this case this sort of bad faith but a reason for filing is not is different than whether or not there's been a denial of the relief requested so the so relief that was requested was going back to state court and the reasons for going about the reasons just forget about forget about the made for the claim there is a live state request it has been denied it can be subject to reconsideration later that's just a sort of ours point i think you've made maybe you tell me that's wrong it can't be ever revisited but if you can be does that pose a problem it does not and i would say that in response to the question about whether or not there could be a renewed steadily motion certainly any party can file a motion at any time seeking relief from a prior order it's been entered however when the context of a stay relief order that's been denied any renewed motion if based on the same facts certainly is going to be denied for law the case and for other astolfo no no no i mean is free to change his or her body and during the life of a case and find it persuasive today but didn't find it persuasive yesterday that's the nature of in the law kotori orders and again i'm just maybe beating the dead horse but i think this is what the chief justice whose two minutes i'm sure is up by now just as prior just to sort of my are now me are asking all basically the same thing is how do you call something final if it's subject to reconsideration by a judge for a considerable period of time in your honor i will submit the reconsideration or the filing of a renewed stay really motion does not determine that a prior order that's been issued is final or in our market torrey it's simply a creation of a new proceeding if there is a renewed motion based on a change of circumstances because like in any bankruptcy case certainly the facts can change during the duration of the pennsy of the case but will you now anomaly you can see that a motion to dismiss denied is not immediately appealed yes but now you're saying that a motion to lift the  is a must not only is but must be immediately appealable there's a dichotomy there they're the same thing they're based on the same argument that faith why should we have one piecemeal litigation denied simply because there is no alteration of the status quo in the denial does not fix the rights and obligations of the parties it doesn't move the case forward and therefore to use the court's words changes little a stay or leave motion is entirely different that is the opportunity for court to lift one of the most fundamental building blocks of any bankruptcy case and therefore when the judge ultimately and finally and conclusively terminate that proceeding by denying the state a relief it not only informs the court i'm sorry informs the movement that litigation has to occur in bankruptcy case but it also prevents that creditor from being able to rely upon the state court right to a jury trial the state court rules of evidence the state court of procedure the ability to adjudicate the claim in state court as it could have done but for the existence of the bankruptcy petition and therefore it does change a lot and it does move the case forward by denying their relief from stay so that the parties can  in bankruptcy court it's also important to note that although written disagrees with this contention both the government and jackson may stay on the same page that the filing of a bankruptcy petition creates effectively a temporary restraining order and this is based on the legislative history in other courts the preliminary hearing on still really creates a de facto preliminary injunction when the order is finally denied the i'm sorry this the motion is finally denied that's akin to a permanent injunction that's going to remain in place until discharge case closure case dismissal or when the property reinvest in the debtor that that's simply the fixing of the the rights of the parties because once that denial of state relief is entered in the permanent junction affectively goes into place the ability to file relief from the stay under three sixty two it goes away and so it certainly does move the case forward and it certainly disposes of a discrete dispute within the larger bankruptcy case could i ask you to respond to your friend's comments on the difficulties or lack of difficulties of an entanglement i guess or call it in the words the fact that the one in the absence of  confirmation where creditors are provided treatment and then jackson masonry is able to perform under the plan routes and now seems to wait until the end of the bankruptcy case without objecting to the plan after confirmation after the adjudication of a claim to which it expressly consented to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and now it wants to ask this court to ultimately provide a path to go back to state court and get a different result and that different result would blow up the entire bankruptcy case if ritson is correct at the state court level which we obviously posit it wouldn't be but if it could go back that changes the entire dynamics of the bankruptcy case creditors have already been paid in this and if i may your honor answer the question as to why that is equitable newtonist at least the movement standard the principle is founded upon the simple position where's whether this court is able to fashion a remedy that restores rit to the previous position it cannot in this case because there one has been a plan that's been proposed in confirmed that included a discharge and also included a plan injunction against proceeding that has not been appealed written tries to argue in its reply in argued at the podium today that that was carved out in connection with play in confirmation but it wasn't the court can look at the docket it can see that only they claim objection in the two adversary proceedings were carved out so the one remaining issue that has been appealed that was not carved out was the denial of the state relief so now that jackson masonry has obtained that plan confirmation that has resulted in a discharge reversing of the property and a plan injunction it is effectively moot because there is no automatic stay that exists if there is no automatic stay that exists how can a written get relief from the automatic stay in connection with a future appellate proceeding that's the st part the nd part is that nothing  required ritson to consent to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court but it follow an adversarial proceeding and without reservation and allow the bankruptcy court to determine the case to finality this court in caterpillar vs lewis had a similar type of situation where the court ultimately concluded that it that a procedural defect is not fatal if the federal adjudication exist and there was jurisdiction at the time of entry of the judgment that's what we have here we have an adjudication on the merits of made it a so that's true but in every case throughout the entire legal system there's always a choice of the kind of issue here if you say you have to wait to the end of the case to appeal the result you don't like of a motion for example x wants to leave the trial judge the bankruptcy judge or no ok if you have to wait till the end of the case and appeal it if you're if the judge was right go problem use wrong and you're right everything has to be done all over so you say goodman immediate appeal if you give an intermediate appeal what happens is when he sa you have a lot time of nine months of having the major media appeal that there are a one thousand creditors they might all do it and god only knows how long this case is going to take that's why they have big backlogs and some other countries are too kind hearted in allowing immediate appeals ok so you want to see something about that that we balance those two would love to respond to it and there are two things that i respond to one is every creditor in the country should be lining up behind our side of the podium here in the reason is because what ritson is proposing is moot every creditor's ability to obtain meaningful relief on appeal when the order was denied and that simply because upon plan confirmation in discharge occurs there is no stay in place and therefore any party who tries to appeal  the denial it's immediately moot it's going to be dismissed so i would say that the st question is that there might be more peels during the pendency of the bankruptcy case but those would be meaningful appeals and creditors need to have the ability to have meaningful appeal not one that gets mooted the nd issue that i have with position in that response to your honor's question is that we have to presume that actors that creditors are going to act in their own economic interest in connection with a bankruptcy case in a case like this where the bankruptcy court is saying that we're going to adjudicate three truncated summary claims adjudication procedure that a creditor is not going to spend a lot of time and a lot of money on an appeal process just to get to an even in more expensive state court when it could be resolved debtor side lawyers were not afraid of appeals during bankruptcy case and certainly to the extent that this piecemeal litigation continues to crop its head in this case piecemeal litigation is the concern about extending the length of a bankruptcy case and i'm sorry the length of any case but bankruptcy is different because obviously it's an aggregation of many individual disputes and the the concern is that if you wait until the end of a case that's an additional time where a debtor remains in bankruptcy certainly is not credit worthy when financing is important to the united states trustee fees that are always going to be occurring so long as the case is open and lastly the competitors of a debtor or able to use existence bankruptcy gets them in the marketplace they argue from the language and bullard see the alter the status quo language that this doesn't the denial here doesn't meet that task can you address that i certainly can just have all the reason that board is is perfectly consistent obviously bored stands for the proposition that in order denying confirmation is in a lock tory for obvious reasons in that case the debtor had an opportunity to amend did not  that precise language alter the status quo so if you can zero in on the yes so alteration of the status quo in our case it comes from two different levels one is because the court unequivocally decided that the claims adjudication process would be in bankruptcy so prior to that ruling it was an unknown as to whether or not it was going to be adjudicated in state court or bankruptcy court the court made it clear the nd reason is use our injunction analogy is that you have various stages of the injunction process we all know that a permanent injunction  position is that a permanent injunction can be and should be immediately appeal and so to the extent that the petition creates a t r o preliminary hearing creates a preliminary injunction and then the denial of a motion to dismiss is effectively an injunction against that creditor for the duration of the bankruptcy case until it gets revisited so the alteration of the status quo is the fixation where the claims are going to be adjudicated and also moving it from just being a creditor who has rights under three hundred and sixty two to one whose rights have been fully exhausted under order in a case as ordinarily understood always one that alters the status quo sometimes the effect of the final order is to leave the leave the status quo in place your honor i it is our position that the use of the term status quo i believe was used it was one time inboard and it came to define really what it took to move the case forward in so there in subsequent sentences so our position is not the status quo needs to be established every time order for there to be finality we think status quo is more of a definition of the proceeding as opposed to finality we compartmentalise it by arguing that finalities looked at by whether or not there is anything left to do so proceeding does involve the status quo in so i think that in order to have a proceeding discreet dispute significant and one that moves the case forward sometimes that status quo could move the case forward so our position is not that should become a new standard however even with the alteration the status quo test but it looked at it in two truncheons the st one being whether or not we have a proceeding and whether or not it was final it's our position of the six circuit looked at the significant consequences and alteration of the status quo fixing and obligations of the parties to determine the proceeding portion and then with respect to finality that an order a spinal if a little bit different our position on the order is is final if it  does fix the rights and obligations of the parties again but there is nothing else that needs to happen and order for the judgment to be executed thank you counsel and may please the court begin with the questions that were just posed about the status quo language in the bullard opinion it depends on how you understand that language in terms of whether we think would be a good that had previously been on certain liquidate something that had previously been an ascertained then we're perfectly fine saying that that's a part of phonology if however by status quo alteration what is meant is that there is some action out in the world that one party couldn't take that he now is able to take or vice versa i think that would be an improper understanding of finale to give a couple of examples to illustrate that if a lawsuit in which a defendant is sued for damages ends in a judgement for the defendant you could say in one sense that the status quo hasn't changed the defendant didn't have to pay damages before the lawsuit ended and he doesn't have to pay damages after the lawsuit ended w still understand that that's a final order because that put an end to that lawsuit similarly if there were d a temporary restraining order issued at the beginning of the case and a permanent injunction issued at the end of the case there is a sense in which the status quo might not have changed namely that the party that's in joint was prohibited from doing that act both before and after the final judgment but that doesn't change the fact that it is a final judgment counsel on that six circuit placed a great deal of stress it seems on the fact that the state relief denial here was entered with prejudice in its view but what difference does that really make in a bankruptcy proceeding where orders are revisable all the time so is that a even a thing the that exists to say it's with with prejudice when it's not really with prejudice and if it really is without prejudice as a practical matter what effect does that have on your argument here that's a fair concern justice of course which the the st answer to that concern is that as a general matter if the bankruptcy court says that it  denying a motion for stay relief the creditor can just come back and refile the motion now i grant there is an exception to that principle that exception is that under rule sixty b and now this equitable doctrines court can revisit a determination that it's already made if changed circumstances make the original decision no longer equitable but that's not unique to the automatic state any equitable decree including those that we would all recognise as final judgments can be reopened if the circumstances change isn't required really have to meet the standards of sixty b is post final judgment relief in normal civil litigation so we acknowledge there that there are already is a final judgment and some are extraordinary circumstances have to be met it's not just that it's a new day and i see things differently but in the context of an ongoing bankruptcy proceeding is a standard that high as it is high sixty b or do you have any authority to that effect that could help me or is it really just the bankruptcy judges equitable says it is not just the bankruptcy judges equitable sense and the best way to see that is in section three hundred and sixty two we were congress hoopy didley uses the word final to determine to refer to a bankruptcy judges determination of a stay will leave order that that word can't be given meaning if the bankruptcy judge is simply allowed to come back and say oh i revisit it you have any follows what you said that if it really is a matter of statute the compels this understanding of a state relief denial than whether the judge dorn's it without prejudice it's still really with prejudice any  relieved with prejudice that follows from i think what you're saying unless i'm missing something which perhaps i know the statute provides for another type of denial of state relief what it labels a preliminary denial of state relief where the bankruptcy judge says something like i'm denying relief because the debtor has a likelihood of success but i want further proceedings and we don't contend that that will be final where the bankruptcy judge however says i'm not contemplating further proceedings this is a conclusive determination of stay relieve so that tied up in a circuit split apparently there are some circuits that say although you may bring an appeal immediately you don't have to do and you can wait until the end and you suggest that we don't have to think about that question but for me that question is very tied up in all the policy concerns that we've been addressing here the question of piecemeal appeals on the one hand versus the danger of undoing a bankruptcy proceeding on the other and  and those policy concerns for me have a lot of traction in this case i'm not sure what else really to go on so how can we decide this case without deciding whether when we say something is immediately appealab we really mean it has to be appealed at that time i'll start with this case and then turn to the broader issue raised by that split so in this case regardless of whether as a legal matter one is required to appeal immediately rather than waiting until the end of the case as a practical matter as justice alito pointed out in earlier question the there won't be an opportunity for effective review at the end of the case anyway so in this case as a practical matter there would likely be a requirement of taking immediate appeal now on the broader question issue sensually is when a litigant takes an appeal from the final order at the end of the case rather than the final order at the end of an individual proceeding is he allowed to raise as a ground for versal some mistake made earlier in the proceedings or earlier in the case even if he had an opportunity to raise that earlier on and chose not to do so the government hasn't taken a position on that but if it would be helpful i could lay out the arguments on both sides on the one hand in narry civil litigation the rule is that you're allowed to raise any error made along the way in the case at the end when there's a final judgment even if under the collateral order doctrine or some special in the law kotori appeal statute you have a right to take up the appeal earlier on and you chose not to do so on the other hand there are good reasons to think that bankruptcy might be different in bankruptcy there is this concern about unscrambling the entire bankruptcy at the end because of some some error made along the way earlier on so i think in this particular case the court doesn't need to know the answer to that question in order to resolve whether an automatic is suggesting then that this kind of relief and a motion to lift the stay should never be considered really visible at the end but there may be other types of motions that should i'm a little confused we are highly skeptical that this type of order can be a basis for overturning a final judgment at the end of the whole bankruptcy case rock ruling out there may be other types of orders that might be treated so  why shouldn't we just decide this question what why doesn't the government have a position why isn't this right to decide it now seems very tied up in the whole thing the courtroom decide the question because no one's brief the question and the government doesn't have a position on it because that was not part of the question presented it was not argued below was not argued as part of this case when you very objectively and nicely laid out the competing positions most certainly seemed a lot stronger than may  fair inference about where the government leaning on that question with i'd like to address the broader issue of what counts as a proceeding a century when we're looking for proceeding we're looking for something that's a case within that case something that could stand on its own outside the bankruptcy as an independent lawsuit an example of that is the automatic stage occasion its equivalent outside bankruptcy would be a freestanding lawsuit about whether to enjoying the creditor from taking particular action against the debtor if that lawsuit ends in a permanent injunction we all say that's a final judgment the same way when the state will leave proceeding and in a final in stay release order that's a final order well in contrast to some of the examples that justice prior raised would not stand alone as independent lawsuits motion for summary judgment for example would not be its own lawsuit or outside bankruptcy it would be part of another lawsuit so we wouldn't count that discussed in both the conference of both of the house and senate reports which is just a lawsuit about whether a creditor should be enjoying from taking action against the debtor thank you counsel five minutes thank you i'd like to begin with where the government ended and then move through some of the questions that were raised but we have here today the same arguments that the government presented last time last time they took the same position that the court should determine the finality of the order based on the proceeding and the only difference here in their briefing is well now it should be proceedings that are significant the court rejected that logic last time and it should reject that logic again this time in this case i would strongly disagree with my friend who suggests that the stay has an equivalent proceeding outside unlike there are things that are similar such as the claims education process that's a state law contract type of claim a dip financing debtor in possession financing which would be like a state court ruling just you or three hundred and sixty three sale where a state court complained to enjoin the sale or quiet title but the idea that the stay has a parallel common law state cause of action is not something that is supported in is not something that there's any basis in the briefing to suggest now i'd like to go back to the questions raised raised by just a sort of my about revisiting the automatic stay and i'd like to address the four points that were given st of all the respondents actually cited a case to the court that changed out on page thirty eight of their brief the gland the gledhill case from the th circuit actually granted relief from today and ten months later then reconsidered in change that of course we've granted other circuits where the result was the opposite where the court did denied relief from stay and recognize that that might change later number two there was a suggestion by my friend that it would require a new proceeding to to renew the automatic stay that's exactly true no different than in bullard where it required a new proceeding for a new plan confirmation by the court recognized that didn't change the analysis the fact that a new plan would have to be submitted under new proceeding did not suddenly make the old proceeding and immediately appealable proceeding no three the respondent suggested that the motion to dismiss was to have sixty b as the standard for revisiting the automatic stay with absolutely no authority to support that view other then the suggestion that three hundred and sixty two dollars e somehow imports a standard under sixty b  st of all there's been no cases to suggest that in fact the only cases that have been submitted to this court suggest just the opposite but the respondent and the government continue to ignore the fact that three hundred and sixty two dollars he relates only to actions provision provide thirty days after a request under subsection d of the section for relief from the stay of any act against property of the estate under subsection a of this section now with respect to the questions about the permanent injunction again neither party has addressed the question that by definition under the statutory rules three hundred and sixty three thousand three  c says that the stay expires the word injunction is nowhere in three hundred and sixty two the stay expires on the discharge which is what this court recognized last term and by definition it cannot be a final order because it is not a final injunction it very well may act as a preliminary injunction under one thousand two hundred and ninety two a but that is something that this court and congress interlocutory appeal not a final order now with respect to the question about the scrambling of the eggs the concern of the court has been addressed by what exactly happened here st of all the creditors have been paid as t respondent represented but they all got zero dollars ten cents on the dollar that was represented from day one and that was in part the basis for the bad faith claim that the bankruptcy was filed in appropriately so the fact that the dead the creditors were paid zero dollars ten cents and i see my time going to finish thank you very much thank you counsel the case is submitted