confirmation order and that is a summary a disposition without any any any any hearing or without any evidence of their claims against an insolvent bankrupt or so i come back to my question of what bankruptcy what is the bankruptcy provision that you cite to to claim that a fraud claim against a non person is not dischargeable the  win they get nothing well we were certainly are not looking for nothing  if you'd like to take a minute wrap up no i think we have i think i have and which is which is what they're after all right thank you if you would meet your device i have mr being in stock but i hesitate to suggest that your st so whoever supposed destruct doesn't apply just charge exception for fraud doesn't apply to corporate debtors it's the logic of siegel is directly on point that you can't use one of five to fill that kind of gap with respect to equitable for this claim a lot of it does depend on what's actually being sought if know if that if this appeal is about a discharge a discharge means that you know effects the bankruptcy never happened and you and so plaintiffs will be able to pursue a forty three million dollars claim against new kofi anan as if the bankruptcy never happened newco phina does have some resources but very very very few the vast majority of its resources are subject to statutory liens it doesn't have forty three million dollars and so the reason i think is equitably moot is that it would again cause major issues with respect to kofi anna to a finding that comforting it would be feasible to finding that company would have to defend a lawsuit for which it simply doesn't have assets set aside or even plausibly available to pay which could cause severe disruption kerf could go seen in the future when you look at the six were where were basically the court notes that the appellant did not see take the minimal steps of seeking stays at any level not before the bankruptcy court not before the district court not before us and  what they wanted on page twenty seven the day the day to transcript was they wanted language that would come at probably no significant cost to company his organization process that's what they were asking for judge lane to do to change in connection with the order and obviously in terms of equitable moodiness there now you know i think that they're now seeking relief it to the extent that they're really proposing an argument based on no discharge that would be directly financial oversight management board to put a rico as kafin as title three representative first i want to wholeheartedly agree with judge chaotic is questions the fact is as you heard earlier other than obviously this is america there's always nuisance value but other than that there's no value that the crux of the case we believe is that as admitted  page fourteen of their opening of appellant opening brief they're complaining that the government's active malicious advice and inducement of plaintiffs through co sex regulatory power to pressure them into buying excessive amounts of puerto rico debt securities with full knowledge of the unsafe unsound imprudent nature of the investments and the quote is what causes a liability to them and a basis for non destroyed ability the important thing to note is that financial conduit for the issuance and payment of debt backed by the commonwealth sales and use taxes end of quote so you're talking about a finance entity that really exists on paper and they're saying that other people in the government close nd elsewhere because credit unions to buy debt that they knew was not not good debt i'm obviously not going to get into the merits of that but the the complaint can't is not and cannot really be against the pheno because kofi anna was nothing and had nothing to do these purportedly evil acts and that's why in the provision that was pointed out to your honor's in the confirmation order and findings judge swain left all their claims against everybody else alive and well and that's why their adversary proceeding for all types of you know wrongfulness dishonesty etc is alive and well against people who at least might have could have done something wrong to them both has nothing for them and could not have done anything wrong to them and that's why if the plan a confirmation order says a claim is not this charge and the other is if the creditor if the creditor had no knowledge or notice of the case now we know that neither one apply way otherwise they would have used it so now they say they go to section one hundred and five wallow while we concur in the supreme court citation your honour's were given the court doesn't even have to go that far the language of section one hundred and five a says the court may issue any order to carry out the provisions of the bankruptcy code or of this title and in premie said this title is reengineered to be the title  well what appellants are asking your honour's to do is to use one o five to override the provisions of this title because they're asking for you to impose a law other than section i'm forty four and to go one step further what appellants are doing and while you know if they were defrauded etc obviously we are sympathetic to them but what they're doing here is wrong from a bankruptcy point of view they are opposing the plan because they have other claims that they want to survive in perpetuity for what i suggested earlier might be nuisance value if they had enough debt to have swayed the except for the vote on the acceptance or rejection of the plan other creditors would have been within their rights to rick to ask to designate their votes under section one thousand one hundred and twenty six eve the bankruptcy code which says we don't count anything that they didn't have a large enough claim to make a difference in the calculation of whether the plan should be accepted or rejected now finally they make a lot in their briefs that this charge is only granted to the honest steadier and there are a lot of supreme court decisions saying that and weak knowledge that the problem with their argument is that all those cases refer to human beings who are on a steady or dishonest status when it comes to an animate object like a phina punishing coat phina because it did something wrong if even if it had done something wrong does not punish caffeine a at all it punishes coffee and has other creditors and that's why there are no exceptions to discharge ability for wrongful intent or acts when it comes to a debtors are not human being unless the paddle has additional questions those were all my remarks your honour's perfect timing if you would meet your devi appellant's differently than other creditors and the bottom line is that a different allocation of funds is by definition a different plan and that would mean that the current plan is void with all of the enormous harms take along with this session of the honorable united states court of appeals is now recess until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the meeting