when you negotiate with each claimant the claimant can say when you say by the way you have no evidence that you were exposed to g one product you have no evidence of injury you were paid and three other bankruptc the substantial time and expense of a jury trial whereas i could pick the damages in bankruptcy we submit it should not be outside bankruptcy depending on how things are resolved it co it makes therefore to try to get a difference if we're dealing with each claims no matter how frivolous the claim having the threat of a target expend to a jury trial or versus whether we're dealing with what congress put into the bankruptcy code for obvious reasons to minimize time expense of claim resolutions and that is the power to estimate personal injury a mournful death claims for purposes of distribution do estimation proposals require an aggregation of x number of individual claims regardless of how those claims are adjudicated or decided subject to a matrix or subject to individual tr future claims based in their view on the history of paying these claims in the torque system prior to bankruptcy is that your proposal really liquidation proposal as well as world rather than estimation proposal your honor would be that distinction between estimation liquidation i think is based on a misunderstanding so let me try to clarify the bankruptcy code to use of the word but it's going to be determined by less than the normal process for the federal it's a procedure of complete discovery in trials set of the and therefore they use the term estimate because it may not be as exact as you would get from a full trial soup to nuts but it's not any good it's determined to of the exact amount the claimant is entitle to within the bankruptcy in other words when one fifty seven b two the this is the critical point when it says you can estimate for purposes of distribution it means you're coming up with an exact amount of acclaim and that might be what your  trial what happened as recently as one thousand nine hundred ninety four congress passed section fourteen eleven of title twenty eight and section fourteen eleven sa for personal injury and wrongful death claim even though you're in bankruptcy and the supreme court has said there is no way to jury trial in every case you may still have you were right to jury trial if you have one outside of bankruptcy when congress passed fourteen eleven it simultaneously enacted section one fifty seven b two b of title twenty eight that talked about explicitly said that he weighed that against desire recall some of the concerns about experience to the to the court system and the delay expense attendant to piecemeal appeals and decided t now when it comes to the method of determining each respects disclaim she went on record that they each have to have a jury trial option and my adversary say well you shouldn't concern yourselves with that your honor is because that will be some five twenty four g trust and they'll take care of it they argue in the back room after confirmation but even then it even if they're right it makes a big difference in how the money is allocated if it claimant can demand  with the right to jury trial issue not at all and that's why i want to mention judge pastor's decision in the seventh circuit so even if even if we found that we had jurisdiction i'm skeptical about that but even be found  the the dinner was dealing with whether i have to assume contracts for large aircraft and it mistakenly decided to assume several of these contracts thinking that it didn't  exact posture we are here at the seventh circuit said first it had jurisdiction of the people and then judge pozner explains that because this decision as to whether the aircraft be in effect or not would have a heavy impact on negotiating and on the chapter eleven plan that number one the appeal was it was a viable order it should be decided and number two he said i'm not going to send it back your honor there are only two possibilities the most likely one is after a plane is confirmed because at that point all be interlocutory or yours if that's what you determine the status would be folded into the final order on the plan and there's going to be a huge impact on the only other possibility that i can think of is that the if we went back to judge can we get on with this this problem while we could go back to her with a new method well it i don't know what god means by totally independent but they see different relief to me that makes them if you can they both use the word estimation and that because of the that my adversaries used to say they're both really the same thing but they just want an aggregate number we want to know how each individual claims resolved and we're not asking for america's number so one thing your audience could do is to determine was a point of order and tell the district judge to decide or appeal the second  owners could do is not go through our entire estimation method but say it was a final order you considered the jury trial issue and you think the bankruptcy judge was right or wrong on that but the district  and just as importantly a proper understanding of the way parties position themselves before judge gave birth develop in proceedings that led to entry of the order and i submit to your honor's that  to future claims counts so yes it wasn't that kind of proposal as opposed to your proposal who are the committee's proposal on strictly estimating yeah group have an impact on the assets of the state no not in the procedural proposal but again going back to the finality question i guess the basis of their argument here is that they're matrix or their tool was going to get closer to the bottom line as to what you have set aside for the accurate result more quickly and would allow for less to have to be set aside for the a specialist fund than your proposal which would be a that in aggregate estimation well i don't mean my if that's correct how can that not have some impact on a state that's we're only here looking at jurisdictional questions on if you know it's not a decision on the merits of asking that question i know i understand where you're coming from this may be at the end of the estimation when numbers placed on on any alternate estimation procedure to them probably when the bankruptcy courts were clearly and explicitly contemplated discovery going forward and when she would like to cherry pick is that a jury trial there were a whole lot of other reasons why judge they were double rejected its plan and it would be improper i submit to accept that cherry picking passed on that issue correct when they argue that if we don't resign the jury trial issue at this juncture there will be an opportunity to do it before g one holdings proposes and confirms that chapter one point here i do think that's correct always a matter of balancing considerations this case needs to move forward we don't need side detours and interruptions of the process that there's nothing going on in the bankruptcy court said she she rendered this decision on how to go about estimation and we're just about to launch into the actual discovery of the matter but here's an essential point back that opinion this already two years old it is that we've begun to cover a lot of ground since then a lot of other decisions have been made that if you were to case g what is wrong to suggest that the question of jury trial life was the be all and end all of the matter in fact it never never rejected their plan on a host of other grounds most importantly rejecting their notion that she could delegate to a ninety three to conduct this matrix there can't be that the court itself must do it that's one lawful delegation of a judicial power then the specter of one hundred fifty thousand euro trials the bankruptcy case the cheap one raises simply cannot happen it isn't true but kind of the core confronted with the nature of this case isn't going to work with the points one by one isn't require liquidation committee would take a couple of years to get going that it would take a couple of years to get really quick i just don't think it's the right thing to do judge banks were never passed on the merits of those security decisions pluck the jury trial question from the whole entire complex digital camera delphic answer that and send it back if you are not persuaded as i think you should be that her decision was in the final order of her appeal it seems to me your only  say i'm going to cost you x thousand dollars in a jury trial unless you give me the cell number one no my adversary just admitted you will not get to review this until confirmation i don't want to point you if it's so that that would not hold up the other things she was doing i'm mentioning it now because it proves entirely that my adversary is one hundred percent wrong in saying that our motion was meant to get to the same him so that is just i take heart in fact they continue to try to say that our motion is the same as their motion just a different method it's totally false page six twenty one  whole case has to be done over currently and this was only done a few weeks ago you are going to hear him tell us set a date in two thousand b for the estimation trial that they want to have this can be reviewed and the judge can be gelug kendo for the purposes of our motion how to liquidate individual claims and for their motion the average here whether there is a free trial right she has to deal with more fact finding no more back throwing is required for our motion there we had a motion to use a medical matrix but all of her objections were based on issues of war the special master issue that  sweat brought up of as we pointed out the district court can use magistrates she had a few other uses each word tweaks that are easily fixed if they were urged to begin with but all of them were legal points the bankruptcy court