this morning is rice against an unpronounceable name trust may seem otherwise well we've had three years why isn't the question now what the evidence shows rather than what it showed three years ago well i think judge to the moon is  point to establish moon as there can't be any reasonable expectation that the alleged wrong will be repeated here we've got several additional pieces of collateral but why would the alleged wrong be repeated you can stop a sale by posting a bond right there was no request for a ban on the sale or apparently was no proposal to post a bond to stop the sale stop everything in its tracks  that's that's what happens in litigation and we've said over and over again that once a sale closes you can't go back in and read litigated and it's perfectly capable of being reviewed in the future if you repeated just this way if the evidence is the same and you don't post a bond but we don't know that the evidence will be the same and we don't know the chilled client post bond so much let's get to the knob of my question  between the parties trying to resolve this matter so it inevitably didn't work out in it may work out or what's happened in the district court in all these years basically some limited discovery with the same day shoes being the same as they are today today as they were in two thousand and fourteen so not much has changed despite the length of time why should we even think about reversing it just records preliminary injunction when the judge said this is just tentative biffing to do is bring me more evidence why don't we just say the thing to do was take a more evidence it in that's with regards to the q a sale to us but there's also this the flip side now not a flip side but another side to this appeal which is the georgia foreclosures  which should have occurred but for the just your courts failure to apply georgia law the deeds to secure debt were governed by georg yet the district court chose to ignore georgia law which georgia law requires that there be a posting of a bond or some security for the deed to secure debt before the sale can be stuff foreclosure sound georgia can be st may furthermore you had relief being sought clear rejection basis there was an even trade for it in the a police complaint and then you had this issue of standing you had a property owned by an entity that was not even a party to the case you also had a de disk your dad executed by party that was not a plaintiff i think there was a standing issue there that was completely ignored again which one is missing i don't know what the injury to the plaintiffs would have banned should these foreclosures at least as to the ninety nine parks and probably they weren't they in they want to bend the injured party in your party would have been the one that owned the property and that signed the deed to secure the debt they think said they'd submit that they have a financial interest now you may think that's wrong but that's not a standing question if there is a suit for breach of contract and the defense says you can't show damages that's not a standing issue that's part of the merits but why is this a stand in judge i think again to it to obtain a judge an injunction you have to show that you're going to be irreparably harmed and again that would be nice for not a standing issue understood that's a question of proof beyond that judge i really don't have much more to say here this morning ok thank you thank you m a lawyer with illustrator it's hard to to pronounce may please the court the issue this court must decide is whether judge chain abused his discretion by exceeding the bounds of permissible choice when confronted with the evidence  preliminary injunction hearing do you agree with mr sullivan that essentially what's happened in the district court in the three years the last three years is nothing no additional evidence presented to the district judge with regard to the the value of the key or property i think that with regard to anything i do not agree with that do not ok so what additional evidence has been submitted to the district judge additional evidence has been submitted both to the judge and to the ma concerning the events that gave rise to the purported default your honor which we contend are meritless much of the litigation in the district court has surrounded that issue in particular and that evidence has been be more concrete i mean are are you referring to the shortfall in liquid assets issue here what issue are you referring to were referring to both the shortfall and the the  other properties that are left as council saying you know that has something airing on those properties and those upcoming transactions so it's your view that my response is that they are not covered by the exception to the modus dr and there are two elements that they would have to show to establish that and that is one that the the the ration is too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation and then the second element is that there's a reasonable expectation that the same complaining estimated fair market value so that that particular set of facts and circumstances we submit will never be will never be addressed again in terms of repetition we've got different properties they're located in different parts of the country and they have different values and the opponents have raised the issue that if they are stuck with this order that the f l lease have license to sell these properties at any price they  we think that is a simplistic reading of judge change order we know in the years that have have succeeded the border on november eighth think that the act always have not attempted anything any type of sale any type of fire sale or selling the properties for a dollar is that apple has suggested judge change the order would let them do so for those reasons we don't believe that be capable of repetition evading you exception to the judge change interpretation of the second forbearance agreement should be affirmed the second programs agreement fundamentally restructured the relationship among the parties his interpretation of that dream and we submit was logical sensible the radical application of the proceeds and the during standstill languages contained in those sections second to district court properly recognised that in view of that language the appellant suggestion that  the mortgage could not be released except upon folk payment of the entire outstanding in dead this would render those provisions entirely meaningless and finally judge frank correctly concluded that to the extent that the opponents contend that the release of the liens of the additional collateral was within their discretion they were fusil to do so at least with respect to the keel or property was a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposed all contracts with respect to the the aspect of the injunction that stopped the stop the opponents from proceeding with respect to the foreclosures on the ga properties  submitted and and judge chain agreed that that the defaults that were the basis of those were closures were made under the second forbearance agreement so the second forbearance agreement is really simple but as we pointed out you know briefs even if you accept what the appellant's are saying that under georgia law you have to pay the entire outstanding indebtedness before you're entitled to injunctive relief which is a drastic proposition we submit  the cases do not stand for that the cases cited by the appellants in each of them there is an underlying payment the full and bit back at least that issue of default was not dispute and motions have been filed we're not at the trial stage so no evidence nothing is change in this case and we're hamstrung a again with a ruling that says if you have a forbearance cream and you have to give a release on a full sides and in this relationship you can't swear in a sworn financial statement that the properties were some point five million dollars and turn around and sell it for millions dollars less soon thereafter or they had a duty of good judges the district courts analysis of the appraisal at the time that was presented in the plenary judge and even that appraisal said this was not a market value this was a this was a liquid foreclosure type appraiser where where and the property including the repairs that were needed should have been valued at one point two million dollars more than what the a prison site and it was a sale to a third party that was using it for an investment so there are all these issues judge it so the duty of good faith is not just solely on behalf of the lender here it's also on behalf of the borrowers are just want to make that clarification thank you thank you very much the case is taken under