you've got it's dreamily detailed opinion well respected bankruptcy judge who said i didn't understand what was going on i didn't understand what was going on for sure the bondholders didn't understand what was going on and it was buried and that's not the way we do business here in my court i said your honor and i would like to address that straight out there's no intention to hide anything from the bankruptcy court and the record shows that nothing in fact was hidden from the bankruptcy court as are women are a matter of the release in favor of the indentured trustee the bankruptcy court and the bondholders but i've got the judge who served is that you have in that ninety one thousand motion the hearing on that he's asking you know what's the that's true you've got to deal with your constituency why is the bankruptcy court involved in that than the mr shell said well that's because the releases that are part of this are there it's a global settlement so the claims what what  position is that the claims against the bond rustier claims that would be made over against the debtors it would deplete the estate and in effect there would be a third party action and that's not what the  thirty three paragraphs is the only paragraph that mentions exactly what's what's happening here and you're technically correct you did help the court but what the court is saying is for something of this nature you've got to highlight it  motion which is in the record it's at ten forty where these specific terms are highlighted that was the first thing that the bankruptcy court court saw and the court indicated to counsel that he had read the motion and in fact before the hearing he contacted debtors counsel as clerk did and said the judge has the papers he has questions about three paragraphs in the proposed order the proposed order has three pages the last paragraph of which related to these releases and the judge asked counsel to address three specific paragraphs the paragraph relating to the release was not one of them and when we got into court the it was reasonable to assume based on that based on that direction prior to the hearing and then it was confirmed during the hearing it's in the correct transcript that the court said i have questions about three specific paragraphs that i  like answered and again confirming that he had read the motion now in answer to a different question that he asked mr shell did say your honor we're talking about a global settlement and releases so you've already given up close to eighteen million and you're saying but the reason i say you know the bondholders are upset obviously becker filed an objection if you want the bondholders to vote on the plan and that's who's actually going to do the voting then you really have to make sure that they understand what they're voting on and you're saying in effect well the the the bankruptcy judge knew me also add with respect to the ninety one thousand motion before the september eleventh correct that was the first motion as i said two things we were trying to accomplish there one was to put the bondholders on notice of the settlement which included the monetary terms and nobody says and to preview what the court because under the settlements elation if the release was not going to be included in the settlement then i in the hearing we we answer judge franks questions we believe he's satisfied he signs the proposed order as is he doesn't change it whatsoever too much more than two months later maybe two two months  fact what happens is he he tells us to brief the motion for reconsideration on that in order confirmation initially postpone and we i meant together some attorney date you agree to a separate hearing on assessment what happens when so when we get there it's becomes apparent that what's going to happen that the solution here is going to be this bifurcation order and you know it was not a perfect solution there's no question about that but that point this is crucial to you in agreeing to this plan then you say we can no longer agree to this plan today i mean if it's crucial to you that's what you do so it obviously wasn't it will deal with it separately and you don't say well then the global fund would have a glitch and we can't go through with well we don't do that your honor because the following at that point if we had pulled out of  a fall in a court fine and and the hospital there was there was it was almost a certainty that this plan of reorganization would have greater on the spot the holders we had worked with the holders we had worked with a new majority of the holders for eighteen months along with a independent financial consultant to come up with this package they would have ended up getting nothing holders that gave up their these people who were giving up all these claims well let me address the u c c filing issue the which is a separate issue on the merits of that well i mean ok it seems to me that that's separate issue and the bondholders who are going to give up their claim need to know what kind of claim they have and assessment whether it's a pretty good claim or it's really short why don't they have to know that w a claim against you you know where they consent to this thing but that is frankly that is on them in the sense of the new information the bondholder notices that went to the holders throughout the course of this bankruptcy had specific information about the claims that had been asserted at least one of the key points of your right if this was you giving them information and it was so crucial to you you noted at least five places in the disclosure statement where you could have put something and you didn't and for example the with the provision called the bond frosty litigation why wasn't it in there i mean that was on one page on what forty cries you tell a person who's reading that what's going on and how you resolve how you were well i think in fact that's what it did in the disclosure statement outlining it was set out in a separate paragraph entirely where just just the releases and it was very clear under this like there are just frank noted that you know you could have complied with thirty sixteen and you could have but it  you didn't do it well i think your honor that there the second sentence was given no deference the second sentence said very clearly the bond trustee that the others are pushing their rights crucial point and you want to be sure that when you're done you walk out of court it's over and what the impression given i think to the bankruptcy court to the district court judge savage is that you know you were trying to walk a fine line can we just get this through quietly and what the court is saying is when it's something that's crucial as you say set forth in our briefs and i'm happy to walk through it i notice that my time is up and have to stay here there are time ok if you look at the body of information that was provided to these holders beginning with the ninety nine thousand motion release i mean if you know you could you could we could debate probably all day different places that you could put references to release as we cross reference that that could disclosure statement cross references whe very clear in that second sentence which was given no weight by either court that there's going to be a release the bondholders are going to give a release to the pond trustee and all of th one of the things that he had intended to start with a course before the questions is putting this release in context because why it was necessary and why he it was important to us because if we don't get the release against the the class action right now is we have opposed the motion for a class certification there are some issues that have come out of that and judge davis has asked me to do some additional discovering and do some supplemental discovery on sun class action related issues and we are in the process of doing that in addition i can note and you can take traditional notice of the fact that no other bond holder has sought to join mr parker as a sat that there was a group on holders who participated in the settlement and they were all happy and i asked who were they were they the institutional bond holders were they were people who were who were involved and insiders in the hospital they were not insiders at the hospital there were filing the bankruptcy proceeding we invited all bondholders to participate in this process i never came forward yes you worked with the group right r and as i'm sure this court knows the fact that you have people who do not respond it's very clear that they cannot be considered as protectors i do not voters do not get that status otherwise you get the bankruptcy  said to him and and the chance was just missed well it was it was not missed because we thought that he didn't understand we wanted to mislead him that is certain we wanted this issue we're here today ask your approval of this particular ninety nine so i'll talk and i read you some language quirk there's a lot of additional language every time case you don't want that you don't want that happening with people to let you know exactly what so that so that later on this judge for him to come back and say you know what inadvertence at one point and i wasn't aware i think a lot of guts for him to do that because it could have been done much easier and everybody could have been saved a whole lot of under understood and as i said in the context of being there having known ahead of time that the judge take questions about three answered thank paragraphs and said i am going to i am prepared to approve the order in all other respects that is what was in the record and he said that that day it was reasonable to assume that he understood the despair graphs and that they were  you have the monetary recovery rate that is negotiated which is being funded by a whole separate bond issue that's otherwise they were looking at liquidation the hospital was an extremest could not afford to pay the bondholders i don't think the challenge had been the debtor so you're saying the that isn't secured we actually get that on the right track it's a secure it's now considered secure that they'll get paid thirty five percent of what the as part of that settlement the debtor has to now dismiss that lawsuit in which the better is challenging the class of its creditors and trying to move some creditors into a different class that that lawsuit has to go away the bankruptcy law where the code that requires the inventor trustee to lay out what the claims may be against it that's right all we're talking about here is the release you're getting so that you know what they're you have you have different relationship you think these people don't you're not going to sue me and i think you've got to say that you're clearly you are again respectful if you look at the indenture there's what we'll do is i would suggest that less we ask a question of mr barnes that you would like to deal with i don't necessarily see the need for a bottle but if there's something that he really says that you think needs to and it was a concern that that might have a negative impact on the organization so he with assurances that he would preserve his ability to object to the propriety of the inclusion of the third party releases at the time of confirmation prior to judge frank being able to review it and had he reviewed he would have seen the objection that in part was based on the impermissible inclusion of the third party release and that would have highlighted the that that critical issue for right there after the circumstances surrounding that withdrawal of the motion for reconsideration as much davis has asked us to look further into we were not given an opportunity to respond to that motion and deal with the issue at that time it was we draw the motion there are very few judges who want to leave to a motion to withdraw and i think only for myself you know and i'm not so i'm not suggesting that the court should have i'm not suggesting that the court should have done anything i just want to make clear procedurally what happened that we did not have an opportunity at that point that was the point at which frankly to deal with this issue on the police and we did not have an opportunity to do that we did not we did not agree that it had been that it should have been preserved for  number thirteen twenty nine eighty two mr love and ms