good morning may please the court my name is tally mindy wiener i'm here today as and for the appellant a little bit nervous my first time before a circuit court i hope you bear with me  prepared some remarks and you can feel free to ask me questions at any time so i'd like to open with a previous ruling by this court some language i think is really important here which is the d b s d case and six thirty four f third seventy nine where this court said we think it plain that we should not forbid all appeals by out of the money creditors such a rule would bar a large percentage of creditors in bankruptcy court perhaps a majority of them from ever reaching the district court or this court however erroneous the orders of the bankruptcy court might be such a result might benefit this docket but would disserve the protection of the parties rights and the development of the law we should not raise the standing bar so high especially when it is a bar of our own creation and not one required by the language of the code which does not contain any express restrictions on appellate standing and that goes on to cite the creditor that was a creditor so i think that only further support to my case because even if you have an out of the money credit r which would rank higher then and out of the money shareholder the court will hear it that there is no rule about being out of the money in this court precluding appellate rights i'm also not out of the money i'm in the money as are other shareholders under these schemes of arrangement i think that there have been a series of analogies made between chapter fifteen proceedings and chapter eleven the right of american shareholder to have access to our federal courts it's the same right that was lost in manville and that was challenged in men feel this court recognizes that there's a right of access to courts i am enjoined so what i have lost i didn't lose by that came in court it's not a situation of comedy which this court has has discussed recently at you've lost access to court i have standing yes because i am subject to an injunction which is ongoing which i protested and i have lost the ability now to access the u s courts and that's not something that the cayman court did the cayman courts injunctions are fairly modest and conservative i mean all you had before they came in court is a scheme of arrangement there's been a lot of comparisons that the other side has made here to try to confuse i think both the district court and this court to make you think that a chapter eleven or something like a scheme of arrangement and that's just not the case the scream of arrangement is and typically an agreement by creditors to do a balance sheet restructuring it can be something else they can be a shareholder scheme but there wasn't one in this case so there's not a cayman court here that enjoined me it was a us court here that enjoined me and the question is whether the bankruptcy court got it right as a matter of of law and as a matter of chapter fifteen i could only be enjoined if ocean rig basically is has a center of main interest in the cayman islands and it is just fairly obvious that this is a greek company that its center of main interest does not lie in the cayman islands under those circumstances there's just no basis under the bankruptcy code for the court to be in joining me and that's why i appealed i have a right that congress gave under twenty eight u s c section one fifty eight i have a right that says the district courts shall have jurisdiction  hear appeals and that's the way that you know it works bankruptcy courts are specialist courts they can enter final orders on court matters but then have a right of appeal what the district court did here is cut off a case on a standard that is judgment misapplied as i think is shown in my briefing and is worse than than than botching a twelve b six analysis you know this practice of dismissing an appeal instead of adjudicating an appeal i think is inconsistent with precedent and it's inconsistent with the statutory scheme now i expect that ocean rig will say well we've been acquired you want to be heard there injunctions that are ongoing and i continued to be subject to those injunctions and this court has reviewed many cases where injunctions entered by bankruptcy courts are at issue court reverses i think the consequence is that this goes back to the district court for merits appeal and do everything that happened in the case now but i'm not asking that anything be undone that happened in the cayman islands wanted to so if we go back to bankruptcy court then the court can consider the recognition question under eleven u s c section fifteen seventeen d recognition can be revoked  this court has reversed chapter fifteen recognition you know this is something that happens and what i would want ultimately is to be able to sue for what happened here i am enjoined in that way i am in the same there's no collateral estoppel there's nothing like that now this court i think you know so you can appreciate i'm a pro se litigant i am a bankruptcy attorney i would certainly need to talk to a securities lawyer to figure out what the securities claims are but i invested in stock that was trading in the united states suits are brought against sister companies of ocean rig in the united states foreign companies are  answerable here and that is what i want it's quite similar to what happened in the fairfield case decided by this court which the district court tried to distinguish which of the apple least try to wasn't raised in the bankruptcy court of the district court as a basis for a standing so i don't think this court should reach that now and this case i think that the barnett case is instructive of the problem with this injunction period standing there is an right word but she would stand to recover in that circumstance that that suggests standing standing what it was it isn't standing just sit in the essence of merits decision with respect she'd have standing to challenge it the distribution is like a weird way to understand standing generally standing as you have no skin in the game but this is a journey she is just nosed into the game because it's no skin left standing analysis focuses on the order that's being challenge and i think that's very important here she's not complaining about the priority scheme or anything like that what she's complaining about is this recognition order and what that did was just act as an automatic stay extensionally while the cayman restructuring was proceeding so if this were a chapter eleven plan and there is some problem with from pursuing those claims because of this stay then that might be standing and that's similar to the fairfield case which we've heard a lot about someone wanted to bring a claim so you just need to make a connection between your challenging and your interests so i think that would be consistent by shareholders are in the money or out of the money what what happened in this is explained in the papers as they were diluted down to nearly zero and that wasn't a recognition that there was somehow a surplus or enough value for creditors to recover that was just to facilitate a continued stock listing about where the debtors had their center of main interests and i think it's appropriate standing to reason the doctrine exists is because it cuts it's just a predicate to a review on the merits so when standing is lacking then you don't reach the merits and that's just a future doctor and turning to equitable this court supplied that doctrine for decades and there's every reason to apply it in chapter fifteen if you like to the purposes of the doctor and it's about avoiding unsettling restructuring plan that's become final and it's based on importance of third party reliance and those concerns are only heightened in the chapter fifteen contacts where the statute tells you that you need to coordinate with with foreign countries with respect to the comedy point the way the comedy comes in here is it's decision u s court to be has it and in this context of a chapter fifteen she was considering its predecessor president about doing things that will unsettle a scheme of arrangement under another country's laws when that schemes become final looking to the circumstances and there's no question here that this restructuring is become final and has been final for nearly a fifth year and a half when i became effective in september two thousand and seven there are significant distributions of cash new equity existing debt was cancelled and so recognition but not a single shareholder or creditor attacked the recognition order and that goes back to this standing point where this the people with a stake in the restructuring were the creditors who got a partial recovery and even the one i mentioned who had problems with the restructuring they ended up going along with a recognition order did not file or objections there was not a saying the only objection was that of the appellant here and i think that's an important point in just looking at the important factors so you can just stop there looking at what the relief that's being sought here would do and i think we heard that clarified it's basically vacating this recognition order and there are unchallenged findings below that  schemes are dependent on a recognition order that there is a later and forstmann order and their findings that that relief was necessary to prevent hostile creditor action and without that order there could be irreparable injuries so there could be really significant consequences to the finale securities aspect so equable moodiness has not been applied in a chapter fifteen case before to apply it in the middle of this appeal would be changing  the the law in a way that is unfair to the point of being unconstitutional in order for there to be an equitable mootness analysis and in this circuit there has to be a substantial consummation substantial consummation it is a concept that applies in chapter eleven plans only just does not apply to schemes of arrangement they work differently in the court here below applied a substantially completed standard this district did which had some skepticism but she reached the merits i think what should have happened here is merits briefing where before the district court on thursday i believe my opening brief was d