stara think they have in mind the whole past year and their substance underlying the claims in there you know you can get through the legal issue where you think the judge made a mistake because we've now like we do always in these bankruptcy case and says you've really got it the courts think it is you've got to have something on which the face of the documents shows the amount at the time of the stay in motion which we requested from the trial judge are the court seems to stick more now it is interesting because the my opponent will argue that you had to do more you have to attach almost a pleading style documents to your proof of claim which sets forth all the elements in other cases home is out there standing alone saying that you do have a bankruptcy court decision which my point relies on as well called in great holte which stands for the proposition but in court what was happening wa the proof of claim standing alone has promised they see the letting it is interesting your honor if one is to look at for example the strain that the bankruptcy judge uses saying that you have to have documents which document i mean if i catch this picture from the last case that's a document not the document upon which you rely obviously it but your thank you could have an attorney's note that i added up everything at one point three million dollars no i don't and i don't believe that there would be appropriate to run obviously that isn't the case here that the contract upon which we relied the management services agreement was attached the question becomes the uses but that in and of itself doesn't really work because while even an invoice may show an amount it doesn't show all the other elements of a contract it doesn't show with the goods being the limit it doesn't show whether they're conforming it doesn't show whether the if there is an appropriate objection and the question is whether the the other in this case raised an appropriate objection what the bankruptcy courts say it is there all the data has to clearer that if you intend to object to a proof of claim you must come forward with evidence the issue in this case was the bankruptcy court found there was insufficient proximate cause evidence notwithstanding the fact that the proof of claim is deemed to have stated that just by operation of law so then the burden is on the object and party to come forward with evidence it's a light standard we understand that the inexpensive process but likewise life wise the burden on the opposing party is equally light all the opposing party needs to do is come across and strike either nine the problem is that is not in the record there is nothing in the record where the dead are actually introduces evidence saying i deny now there's lots of legal argument there the b contract and you had the judge's order rejecting the agreement which by operation of law is a breach on the opponents and on my phone side why did you have you had one declaration of which there compensated one hundred percent of the revenues that had been paid to us but we wanted to continue to receive those three and use through the term of the agreement and the agreement was interrupted by the rejection and the rejection i think it was an abuse of discretion i think it was unfair if you look at the circumstances in which that came about the objection to the proof of claim excuse me the objection to our evidence  evidence on the prove the claim not talking about the newman decoration but the objection to the newman decoration came about in their reply papers obviously under local rules we don't have any ability to file a supplemental paper in my opening argument i say to the judge there's a lot of issues your honor can you direct me what are your what are your concerns the judge the kinds that invitation we finish our argument at the end of the argument the judge rules on the other to ensure the rulings and then when it all turns on whether or not this compilation of numbers i say to the court give me a chance to make an offer proof the judge says no i think that is an abuse of discretion you want to i wasn't trying your honors good morning lewis landau for the athlete garners i'll be very brief as a matter of policy i don't believe that the ruling in this case will change any bankruptcy policy whatsoever because of the nature of the claim that issue of the facts of this six different varieties of claims so hast some present some future and they didn't connect up with the claim was for except to say that the debtor owes them at least a million for based upon six different varieties of potential plaintiffs and i think that's at the heart of what the problem was with this claim and what caused a focus problem because of the claim was focused from the beginning and was adequately presented from the beginning as a certain variety of claim such as what we see in the case many times the judgment a judgment is entered judgment it's attached to the claim the claim that's well that's a good claim it's not what we have here we have an liquidated claim under a variety of theories and while there's much discussion in the paper about crime aphasia standards for the claim itself are the appellant had its opportunity this ultimately went to an evidentiary hearing substantial papers were filed with the bankruptcy court everyone had their chance and ultimately their evidence very objection sustained and the matter was determined so even if you move beyond the technical issues with prime aphasia on the proof claim everyone had their chance i've  heard the appellate argue that there wasn't a chance to deal with the evidentiary objections that's not quite right there were evidentiary objections made to the declaration that ultimately fell out of the trial which was their problem and there was no response there too so there was a warning that there was objections to that evidence again your article i would submit primarily on the briefs unless you are as have questions for me the there is no change in bankruptcy policy that falls out of this case this is a case that is ultimately he would be saying that you have to do something more than the federal rules of civil procedure require even if the rules of civil procedure allow you to plead inconsistent theories he he would be saying you have to pick your poison and you can't go any other way that just objection don't the bankruptcy court properly give legal effect to the proof of claim and if the bankruptcy court had done it it's clear that when you consider the evidence that was at the claim objection