the plan says that section eleven forty one controls the plan nothing in the plan shall limit the legal effect of section eleven forty one that legal fact is that you have an unconditional and irrevocable contract with the creditors you have interpreted in section one point two as having the we are going to use general hold this litigation as a tool in trust for the creditors that is a limit that's wise in the face of the very terms and conditions of the unlimited people when they're complaining that the behavior of plan the fault or some other issue with the plan that once the plans confirmed it's a contract to creditors that they don't like what happened can sue in state court it's in breach of contract in fact he does want to hear very much about post confirmation issues in his bankruptcy court he tells people go to state court you can sue to get a judgment on an eleven though on a confirmed plan once the plan is concerned it's a contract with your creditors and there's a lot of laws saying that garden variety mainstream chapter eleven reorganization with a discharge is that it's a backdoor revocation of the plan a bathrobe revocation of the discharge this court's held in the orange street case that the only way that you can move oakum plan to revoke a discharge is under eleven forty four of the code that's within six months and that's only there's been fraud this was two and a half years later the real problem that i think we have is this is a very disturbing because that is if it is explicitly precisely in the play and that you wouldn't be here but that that's that's what you're saying that if we affirm what the baptists stand then that's what i'll be happening in the future on a regular basis and that will be tapped for chapter eleven people and it's what you're saying let me give you an example i've been debtors councilman thirty four chapter eleven i had one several years ago that corporation decided to go separate ways one wanted to retire the other wanted to move from oakland to least property in richmond they wanted to sell the property they owned that had been reversed in them based on the be organization here's the legal effect of sept eleventh forty one to make a long story short it took my unqualified legal opinion that the reorganized debtor had the unfettered ability to sell this property different than language with regard to the client your honor i think the i think the distinction and again just to clarify the issue with regard to the restaurant was raised before we got involved in the time stan i'm just trying to your i think the distinction is that in the language your honor you just read it says that the profits in earnings of that operating restaurant are going to be paid to creditors to use t restaurant presupposes and an operation of a restaurant and that's not where the chapter seven trustee does be taken care of in the drought craft in the plan and the negotiation with the creditors with regard to that plan the u s trustees a party in interest in the bankruptcy case as your trustee did not control the terms of the plan and again i think what the chapter eleven reorganize better and not have it reversing a converted chapter seven later after the plan has failed you need to make that explicit in the plan or more importantly in terms of this particular case we can speculate all day as to how much this cause of action may or may not be worth but the one thing we do know is that any recovery and usually goes to the creditors before the  not the restaurant itself it's not a liquidation of the restaurant itself it's that those operations that the bundle of chapter eleven operations that the debtor is operating and it's as a result of the profits correct and they may or may not have a failed plan as a result of that that they might have some it would be hard to prove i agree i think it would be approved problem but i think i believe that the crows would have standing to pursue some kind of action like that especially talking to the extreme if you startled it and walked away with the money or something and didn't pay creditors that all the proof problems i think are are more delicate if there's a there's not from the table and he doesn't show at all and is that a good on settlement offer and on but i think the under the i have a couple comments to make your honor again mr lynch he says that you can solve this by drafting around basically that to me takes away the effect of the law you're not supposed to have to put in the plan with the law in the plan and it also evokes the just charge because the chapter seven trustee is obligated to do so tribute assets when liquidated under section seven twenty six of the code and seven twenty six provides different distribution requirements and are provided under the plan so it's a backdoor revocation of the plan two and a half years later when the only way you can go broke a plan is under eleven forty four i mean frankly the lacy court