consolidated appeal co counsel on the line mr christiania and mr johnson may argue one more issues during the reply argument the tending on what the issues are that are raised before then your hono where transfer here the transfer of an interest to develop a wind farm has been avoided section five hundred and fifty eight may permit a trustee to obtain recovery but the statute plain language puts two limits on that recovery  pertinent here st the to it limits the universe of people against him recovery may be had and it doesn't include anyone including the defendant law firms who never received the wind farm interest the trustee hasn't squarely addressed this language in his briefing and the language for closes his claims the inquiry can and should in there the court need not reach the nd limitation in the text of the statute which is the what what may be recovered is either the wind farm interest itself or its value which only serves to underscore that recovery is premised in the st instance on someone actually having received the wind farm interest the text of section five hundred and fifty dollars resolves both of those aspects of this appeal applying the plain language is a statute does not lead to any absurd or an equitable results on the contrary it is the trustees argument but the word proceed to be judicially written into the statute that would incite abuse and even impede access to justice for defendants in avoidance actions is fairly you the interest that was transferred was a right to cash correctly interest the interest that was transferred was in at times the complaint referred to as a right to a development  it was other times referred to as some sort of ownership interest in to look at a project itself which appears to be a wind farm so it is inconsistently defined in the complaint in the seems to me cuts against your interest that is to say that you come closer to a transfer but an interest when you get them kind of  a line in section five hundred and fifty a and the line defined in the st in the answer to the st question who can be a proper defendant under that section of the code and the statute based on its language is very clear that you have to look lot that is correct but the question for purposes of five hundred and fifty a is what was the property transfer that was avoided and what was the property at issue and that transfer and i could see a put a spotlight on that permits would be we never received the property that is correct your honor ok and congress to a line there between the property for whom the transfer was avoided and any sort of proceeds of that property and so if you look at for example at other lines that congress has drawn for example statutes of limitations that congress or state legislatures may draw there has to be a line drawn somewhere and somebody could file a lawsuit a day after another plaintiff and one of them will find themselves barred and one of them will not the line congress has chosen to draw here is the focus the spotlight of section five hundred and fifty a on the property that was the subject of the avoided transfer which here is indisputable i e different than the property cash that was ultimately received by the law firms there just different property one is probably what he did w consider what did go all the law firms received cash that was else give you a little bit of a history of where the cash came from edison had paid money to satisfy a judgment that was interdict against it by a federal court in pennsylvania that judgment was paid into the registry of the bankruptcy court in kansas and ultimately that was released  order of court over objection of the trustee to l w a c n two freestream which then used some of those funds to pay a law firm so there's this big cash ultimately came from edison through the bankruptcy court registry to the law firms the property yes no good i'm sorry the property that's alleged to have been transferred which indisputably is not cash was an interest and a look at project however defined the law firms never had the ability to go to for example edison and demand payment for the law firm projects that interest was never one provide was their worst a certain payment that was going to be made towards the end and there was a dispute over the amount of the payment edison alleged but due to construction delays and other cost overruns in the project that the final payment should be dollars c and freestream alleged it should be that was the subject of the claim that was brought in pennsylvania and ultimately the district court awarded a judgment in favor of l w eight c and free edison did have the ability to return the value of the property if in fact the trustee thought that it should bring a five hundred and fifty dollars a claim so eddison at that point had the undefined interest in property perhaps but edison as a transferee of the property certainly could have been the defendant in avoidance enough i fifty action the claim being that even if you no longer have the property however it's defined you can return to meet the trustee the value but section five hundred and fifty eight just not allowed the trustee to then pursue different entities and individuals from whom edison had paid money proceeds of that property transfer your honour's i would like to reserve some remaining time for about all i have about four minutes left but i would also like to answer any additional questions that you may have for me at this time i d right i i believe that to be the case but i don't have to record citation for the dates in front of me your honor ok ok thank you interest that was transferred from generation resources to look out when power holding company that was of interest in being paid the sale proceeds of the lookout project that very of what was the interest was the subject of an appeal to this court clear the district court it granted summary judgment to be insider defendants who are the officers and directors genera paid was transferred to lookout when power holding company which was also controlled by the generation resources inside look out wind power help that right intil the seal close the sale happens to close while that rank was after been transferred from generation resources to help with core look at wind power look at wind power help that right the sale closed and then it exercises the right which was to get paid by project at the time that edison bought it look out when power holding company ok got it so that means payment from addison just payments from addison went to the l w h c well that that is exactly correct i mean the judgment and they and it went to them because it went to that entity because that entity held lookout wind power holding company made some payments to the firm exactly they took the same never transferred any right to further payment with respect to that lookout project current was once looked at was very they had the cash the deal was done in close lookout then use the proceeds that it received trustee came along in other words if it it's the timing of the sale that is holding this the defendant's argument is that they never held full rights in the actual not or when rather the single quote and that's something that the statute simply cannot allow and does not allow because unscrupulous the others could easily control the timing of a sale quite frankly under the defendant's argument all of the other would have to do is to take a property that would be subject to a fraudulent transfer point sell it and then  if the transfer had not occurred and the defense argument squarely cuts against that and that is really the key which i think answers this this whole issue about whether  at no point was the law firm that had an interest in being paid based upon the transaction related to the lookout farm right i mean they had a right to be paid for their services then it would have been then that would have undercut the argument that they are making now in the law the point to that argument is is not the you know the intricacies of how that could happen but rather that parties debtors and and transfer release can manipulate the direction of the cash or the right to be tasty and avoid the trustee in the void the purpose of the bankruptcy code if the court were to adopt the lookout property to get paid and other words they wanted to do that as a substitute for their continued to ranchman then they would have been a transfer of the property but by the function of the statute value of the property and that's exactly what the situation is here and what is there a distinction between value of the property and proceeds after the fact i mean this is not there's no correlation between the value of the property and what you're trying to get from the law firm does it you're trying to get a pigs from certainly not the value of the property well if we had we're trying to get the value of the property from the  helped and that's what you have and the other cases whole too is that in some circumstances you simply cannot return cannot return the property can't always is is is either vanished or it is simply not on all fours the situation in this case and being one of the cases that i think is very interesting that rodriguez cited was the case in the final conclusion of that season is that you cannot separate the sale contract thank you your honor st of all the trustee both in his brief and in his argument just now never hits head on the fact that who question as articulated by congress in the statute is answer it's reference to only the the trustee acknowledges that the law firms never had the right to go to edison and demand payment as l w h c would have had of the cases that he cited none of it had on the question of whether section five hundred and fifty eight by its plain language can apply to somebody to who only received proceeds and not the property itself and in this of the cases there as well as for purposes of rule twelve that it was yes for purposes of rule twelve it was traceable thank you up the trustee then brings up when i'm going to call the policy argument and tries to argue that this would create an equity and that somebody could simply sell the property and then transfer the proceeds but what the trustee ignores is that he has a remedy under the code for that scenario he just doesn't have a remedy under section five  there are mechanisms for trustees to bring fraudulent transfer claims and the trustee would then have the burden of proof on that if in fact the transfer to the lawyers for payment of their legal fees was itself improper the trustee could and presumably would have sought to recover from them under after under that scenario he would have had the burden of proof and he would have had to prove either actual or could actually obtain a point in interest in the the lookout sale that would be a different situation than what we have here right a right to be paid as a result of that transaction would because in that case they would have received the property for which the transfer was avoided and to the question about receiving the property and then selling it in that situation with a trustee still be able to go against the court the person to receive the project to transfer for the value of the property that they received well yes if there were fraudulent transfers and the trustee would be able to pursue the person who received the transfer for the value of the fraudulent transfer and that i think it had again the burden of proof to do that and sorry a judgment q were you about to ask a question of yeah i mean here if the law firms provided legal services and they were paid for those legal services very good chance you don't have a fraudulent transfer so i mean it is true that you have a situation where l w h c could just property and use the proceeds for whatever it wanted to do and the trustee have no recourse please that's entirely right your honor and that's exactly what congress intended by drafting section five hundred and fifty a the way that they did if in fact there is there are facts that would allow the trustee to bring a fraudulent transfer action against the farms then he could pursue them for that but the bankruptcy code has not been drafted to permit the trustee to sue anybody who received proceeds of transfer property for which the transfer was avoided that is not have five hundred and fifty eight as drafted and if it were drafted that way that would be the inequitable result a magine a situation if you will where defendants who are sued and preferential transfer actions or fraudulent transfer actions are trying to find counsel to represent them and killed so cannot do so because under section five hundred and fifty a if that transfer is alternately avoided they may be faced with exactly this scenario here where the trustee then says that they need to repay all of the money that they were paid for legal services even though there was nothing improper about the transfer that was made to them and no good being made against them  inequities here cut in favor of the law firms the law firms are nicer within the who of section five hundred and fifty eight nor were the payments made to them for legal services within the what a five  for each of those reasons we asked that you reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaints with prejudice thank you thank you