factual question why didn't you seek a stay of the plan once it was confirmed at the end of september well the plan was actually confirmed in june of two thousand and ten and for the fourth amended plan of wrong doing to charter schools this isn't my colleague my colleague in effect did a good job and here's a hyperlink to what you did write she she endorsed the writing of martha would all she call martha would all writing remarkable and then and this is important she directs the readers of the can the article to go use the hyperlink and go to the charter page where they will find stories of greedy grownups pilfering public gold under the guise  enriching children's lives so what what kenny is doing in the article is really reclassifying and adding to and enhancing the defamatory material that the limitations correct if we buy into that every time that there is a hyperlink to an article that you think may have to famed your clients then you are going to if this rate the statute of limitations this this case is a little bit different then the three cases that were cited by the district court which which found that a mere hyperlink is not sufficient to constitute a republication because in essence that hyperlink is more akin to another copy of a book rather than a new addition here the kenny article speaks a lot but you have to look at the three pieces together you have a history he became the article with its direction to go to see the remarkable reporting where you're going to see  public goal she is saying that all the people all the articles that appear on the charter page all relate all all have something to do with greedy got greedy grown ups pilfering public goal at the at the expense of childrens lives now we come back to judge what is going is not just an opinion piece i believe that she is acting when you look at the at the context of the of the kenney article in context of the charter page and the underlying articles that they all combine together to create one comprehensive statement is it the case that anytime somebody writes an article about two hundred schools and says dirty schools are stealing money and or children by the way case that supports that theory and the only thing i could find was there was a really good case analysis by judge tabor in the western district of kentucky so your case which is seventy one f subsecond nine twelve and it seems like the critical feature is that the second article changed the contents of the initial article that was perceived to be subsequent article that merely had a reference to the a few good men article which was the subject of the defamation and didn't itself the subsequent article didn't have any additional exacerbating content which then relates to and enhances the original defamatory communications that are subject to litigation it's very different from what happens happening here because kinney article contains independent acts acts of defamation against our client by basically accusing the appellant's of pilfering public goal at the expense of children's lives so if if someone were to write an article about financial advisors  content of the previously posted material yes in your particular instance it sounds a little bit more like a content neutral reference or a content neutral link if you know it's you still throwing you're throwing mud on the maid office in the milk in the world and that's what the authors doing but it's not making any particular reference to them other than including the links to the articles about them well i guess it w are you out there because there's an exception to that single publication rule in the form of a republic ation when when there is a new form or new material new new defamatory material that is subsequently published that relates back to the originally published material we need to add something new that says something like you know an investigative reporter might have written some follow up article that says you know the following up on our piece three years ago about the the wasteful spending of charter schools we now present new information about your clients etc etc etc i mean that i think then you're you've got a new clock that starts ticking because they're provided new information about your clients charter schools are are charging granite countertops to taxpayers taking trips to disney employing their children at one hundred thousand dollars a year to read dr seuss employing family members and then funneling lease payments through related profit and nonprofit businesses taking a look at those accusations in the context of the demand for the reader to then go to the charter page where they see the two articles regarding the appellant's front and foremost separately highlighted in big bold print with pictures that is done in a way to district court said that your claim just doesn't qualify as an industry expense under five zero three zero three b because it's a liquid dated it contingent and it just doesn't so i look at actually necessary to preserve the estate and that arises from a post petition transaction between that that or and the third parties they don't and then you are well but there is there has been case law that says that it doesn't have to could be a five o three b crime but it has to be natural actual and this is their expenses that are related to the preservation of the estate and that arose from a situation conferring  the recovery of port doesn't necessarily have to benefit that or the actions that that that created or the actions that resulted in the war have to be done in continuation of the debtors business and that continuation itself is to the d benefit but the debtor also had a fundamental fairness needs to to be responsible and needs to compensate those who were injured by the debtors activities during its reorganization thank you  decision that i think was written by judge floater and a really strong dissent by now justice alito there's five factors yes and it's whether the plan's been substantially consummated whether the state has and obtained whether it would affect the rights of parties not for the court of public policy and whether it would affect the success of the plan yes but when you strip them all first of all just as a factual matter i see that the judge dealt with the first two i don't see where he dealt with the three four and five factors yeah you're right he didn't expressly it's mostly explicitly  unravel the plan and it's hard for me to think that one point eight or one point nine million dollars claim out of the fifty five million which is i guess three point three percent is going to wreak havoc or unravel this plan if even would unravel the entire plan that's not actually the lot more recent cases decided by this court including some group cases cited in january of this year have found that an appeal could be equitably even if it would not result in the unraveling of an entire plan where this issue's going to come back some day and back this is not necessarily the case but then judge now justice alito his point was that courts have basically unflagging obligation to decide cases and not to punt like the saying that somehow it's it's equitably moot whatever that means i mean in this case let's go let's go on to twenty's point about the five o three b claim there is an argument that you could have a tort claim in certain circumstances the right kind of tort that could be  or three be kind and there are some in one of our cases that indicates that that that could be the case but the facts are your you would say do not fit that and if so why the facts itself was not based on the county article or any posted you are saying that was some sort of a waiver or procedural default now but they could see court allowed them to develop this argument just disagreed with it yes in the alternative first that it was actively moot if it's not equally moot they don't have a cause of action under state law so it's not it's not quite fair to say it was based entirely on preposition conduct their request itself was based entirely defamation virtually every court to consider the issue has held that the single publication will does apply to online content so the fact that material continues to be available on the internet isn't doing that hard to square that with the with the internet era in which we live and what about the hypothetical where and articles published in two thousand and six and then some other things happen in two thousand and nine and two thousand and ten article links to the two thousand and six article is long as the two thousand and ten article has had some new information that but he can't hide behind the fact that the initial story dates dates back six years kenya  here they argue that that happened because characterization was made in the by kenny about the prior article here there was no even a hyperlink to any of the alleged alleged defamatory articles  appellants were not three of the four articles at issue in the state court action were authored by other people not this well there is no reason to believe that the reference to the general charter school page which includes it over forty articles about  merely altered the way in with you to which you could access the information want to make an argument here in your post it does make it that the comments made by kinney were significant i mean they were disparaging of his clients and they said you know go go look at my colleague's remarkable reporting about these folks well first of all they were not about his clients they were not  you hadn't asked the court just prior to the schedule aug thirty one hearing at least initially schedule august thirty one hearing to have a objection to the administrative claims of the these folks and also another mystery claim for ten million dollars why did you single these out there was also a priority claim because a five zero seven claim for six hundred thousand you didn't object to initially i'm sorry i don't know the answer that question and i realized that when you go through these things if the board it was august to and they filed by august to why wait until eight days before this initially scheduled hearing of august thirty one of jackson want to fall it two weeks before that well there was no scheduled hearing on the date that the debtor prepared to move forward on august thirtieth on the merits and at no time between the august twenty sixth hearing and the august thirtieth hearing on the merits that the appellant's seeking to german or argue that they needed more time or express that they would not be prepared but you know obviously thirty take it or leave it or but in terms of knowing when the closing on the thirty first was to be postponed it was did you know it prior to filing the objection you were going to postpone that hearing the closing on august twenty if you win if you win you obviously we can see at least one of us has issues on equitable mootness but so you get to the merits today but i'm still having a real problem of a generic article by kinney talking about charter schools in general with a reference back to a colleague's article and a hyperlink to that colleague's article among other articles how that is a quote article who reads all these and clam atory accusations and derogatory claims against charge of schools then goes to the charter school web page and sees the highlighted marquee presentation of our articles is going to make the conclusion that those accusations are attributable to our clients and in doing so thought the reader would say charter schools not but then and then and then the reader will look and say oh the reason charter schools are bad is because of these things that were written a few years ago but what the readers it was bad a few years ago and it's still bad now time to bring the cases within the statute of limitations when it's initially published the articles themselves that that were included in the charter page were really only a couple months older than the kenyan article itself these were in that's for sure and we do acknowledge that in bankruptcy in the bankruptcy context things are sometimes hard on on short notice but typically those those don't involve matters such as the determination of the allowance of claims especially when that that are itself a judge ordered it was a real litigator just a bankruptcy but when the when the when the debtor itself was in control of the process that created the exigent circumstances that was used as the basis for shorten the time period and depriving the opponents of the opportunity to truly have a meaningful hearing before the judge the judge himself acknowledged that these are difficult weighty issues and the judge said i i don't have time to deal with this the state court shoving it off to the state court because it just wasn't time before the bankruptcy court within the shortened period that the debtors themselves created to hear these  to both counsel for well presented arguments will take the matter under advisement