from texas here representing the appellant's the key issue being that the pounds plaintiff opponents were denied the right to seventeen sanctioned the there were two different ones the initial one hearing which the route the judgment was on the sixth of june that one was related to not being able to substitute the second is in sanctions and in the sanctions all of this pivoted around a set of circumstances facts that the plaintiff put forward and his lawyer facts and then the from the irish barrister i'm saying that the poor relied on the testimony and it turned out that the testimony that the irish varistor gave was improper why because the irish barrister stated specifically that there was because he had purchased the company lurk on in two thousand and eight at the time that he did the purchase he gave them information and asked the  and the documents they say were fraudulent were prepared not by family but by company set up and the documents supposedly fraudulent because it had been back dated but the evidence was able to assess the credibility of the people who testify why should we overturn that because in two thousand and fifteen later which the investigation continued because of the issue that they couldn't understand why the filings for indecent or for ventures you know by venters couldn't be found because they knew the two thousand and eight filing they didn't know specifically about but the two thousand and fourteen filing they knew that they had just filed and the barrister came back and said they have never filed they didn't file in two thousand and fourteen and they didn't file in two thousand and eight and if they did it would be in public records what happened in two thousand and fifteen after a decision before us and sanctions is dated september second two thousand and fourteen correct so what was your time what happened later what happened was mr went to to ireland met with the c r o people and found out that there is a system whereby these applications for name when a new thing application comes in the old one is p not only is it purged but the he can go back and get that document through metadata and they did they went back and got the document and showed that it was actually filed as they said it was file and not you know with but i think judge rejected that was presented to him under a ferry of either new evidence or career fraud and he found that it was not either right and how does it how does it change the outcome of the case how was new evidence because why did he abused his discretion in ruling otherwise because there were several different instances there and it was a series of facts first this they said that there was no that there was a board meeting to dissolve  company and in the meeting the voted to dissolve the company then but instead of dissolving the company affirmatively they allowed it to be dissolved the following year it ministre dibley from the c r o the court pointed to that and said that that was an issue that where they showed try to show fraud that they had a duty to and that is not true you can you can vote and it isn't really in conflict to then allow it to be dissolved and sort of formative lee dissolving it and then they said then the next point the court relied on was that the fraudulent that they are the the fraudulent that da findings were prayer by a company set up which is in the business of doing that so he would be saying that the company that does that all the time is fraud and the acting with the pla and they said that they were creating a sham corporation with zeal by license because they hadn't filed by license and it had just been filed in two thousand and fourteen in an effort to create an additional new plaintiff and the truth of the matter is the oh by license was filed to correct what hadn't been done with the obama ventures all of these things were a series of mishaps administratively that should have been corrected and the court disallowed that up and it corrected based on the fact that the irish barrister specifically gave them more and more details stating that this couldn't be done under irish law and the court accepted what the barrister said in two thousand and fifteen when they went into and got into more detail they found that even though it had been stated affirmatively even the irish barrister came back he had stated in air their position then was the deal by law license even though it had the capacity so there were so many other things that it was implausible that anything could have possibly done fall in this line of didn't say isn't everything but he does admit that the c r o does purge those records and that he oh by licensing did have the capacity  barcode pointed to certain dates that were inconsistent and so on which indicated that it had to be done much later in two thousand and fourteen if there are any is there any place in mr mr family's declaration where he acknowledged that it had been done in two thousand and eight and was actually done in two thousand and fourteen yes it is it's in there where is it i said it's supplemental decoration it's in the it's in the supplemental decoration ok i have it open i'm looking at it which paragraph i what i have a paragraph for company's officially named by licensing ltd it was registered under its former name in july at the end of my life fifteenth two thousand and eighteen he just made the statement that it had been registered in two thousand that he just had all kinds of trouble families had all kinds of trouble with the district court in the district court is all over him and he makes the statement that it was i suppose i think the word in is supposed to be on but it wasn't registered on july fifteenth it was it may have been effective for them but it was certainly filed at the registration was prepared by a company set up going to whose company said company set up is the company that the took over the deal by venture filings where this is an outside consultant right the five research they are company that does those corporate filings in ireland and they do they make up the date on their on their own no the date was there but the date on the filing showed that it was the be the effective date not the date of the filing but the effective date was two thousand and eight to correct the error of non filing because the name change was rejected in two thousand and eight originally which mr fenley was not aware of when that was initially taken over from lyrica when did he become aware in two thousand thirteen in when did the judge offer him the opportunity and only offer him the opportunity but direct him to show up for the evident jury hearing and testify which invitation or direction he ignored august six sanctions the case with the sanctions were him the sanctions one with whom he was ordered to appear right you know the sank lines were given an extension of time in order to get him there and he was ordered to appear and downer showed up and without mr finally and told the judge that he didn't realize that is that mr family was ordered to appear and told the judge that he was unaware of any written or directing him to appear and none of that was true but that was not after the case was dismissed with prejudice the case was dismissed with prejudice on june sixth and then the sanctions hearing was august s one were fees and costs connected with the sanctions litigation and the other was dismissed with prejudice that was as a sanction for the misconduct but the ruling well the ruling on the six denied their motion which effectively dismissed the cases that would then august sixth was the official and on the judgement september second she went through that entire litany of circumstances related back to the fraud and what the the frustration of the plaintiff was all that time the plaintiff was trying to continue to show that the sequence of events actually happened and she was saying it had to be fraud it had to be fraud because well the plaintiff couldn't say listen i want to bring you know my limited back which she had every right to this reinstate you know bottom then he would have to go through all the proof of these other issues however he knew that in the back the twenty thousand e mails that have been taken and the ancillary in files that have been taken by the defendants there were files in there and emails that talked about several things including one the purchase they have the right to do this then he knew that he was going to have an issue that the defendants could take the information that they had stolen from the company and come back to use it to prove that he was acting improperly that he was the change the name of just seemed like an awful lot of work to be he was working with a company called private research which was a registration and and company that did the registration filings with the c r o it looks like it looks like he bought nation for why he would buy a taxi company in order to lodge a billion dollars worth of intellectual property my understanding is that there was a connection between he and the burn of some kind is it  consequence to the c r o in ireland that that document changed the company name or changing the director or secretary details and con was back dated that manderson and i understand that undermine your reasons for saying we're correcting an error and we're signing this document now we're telling you that we did this in zero eight we're doing this to correct it then everybody square and that's what he was intending to do he intended to do that with a c r o or intend and then mr della presented this to the court as evidence that have been done in two thousand and eight and it wasn't ok i don't understand that he presented it as being done in two thousand and eight it was always been done in two thousand and fourteen to correct the error from two  and it was never presented that way to the district or was it the way that i read it because all of these were all these facts were basically put aside as totally implausible he specifically said that this this court had you know by had no capacity to sue and that was what the basically the court ruled as he said there was no capacity but then defendants in this case and your honors i respectfully submit to not second guess the district court's findings and decisions in this case judge char breyer presided over very lengthy proceedings including multiple rounds of briefing and a full evidentiary hearing to come to the conclusion that fraud had occurred in this case on the court and to the parties and the extensive record in this case which is set forth fully in our briefing  plaintiff to add to the case after learning that the original plaintiff by limited the owner of the underlying ip that was at issue in the case had been dissolved since two thousand and eight and lack and i think you need to look at some these statements that counsel talked about in context in terms of there's nothing wrong with letting the board vote to dissolve the company because the context is this is the story that the palance pitch to the district court is that by limited and irish company had software technology that was worth over a billion dollars however the board voted to allow the company to administratively dissolve and be struck off the register by the irish company's registration office but before that dissolution took place in two april two thousand and eight it transferred all the rights to this very value ip technology to suppose it holding company in singapore called e who then held it just long enough until a taxi company was incorporated in ireland and on july fifteenth of two thousand and eight and then the holding company transferred this very valuable ip technology into that taxi company who was really the was really the proper plaintiff in this lawsuit and have been operating as since two thousand and eight that's their story and even if one could think that this is remotely possible what happened at the district court is the parents provided no evidence whatsoever to confirm any part of the story and instead submitted false and misleading declarations and documents of the district court in order to advance this the story that he had but as you can tell from the record there was a very thorough investigation by police we did have to employ the services of irish barrister in ireland because of the four nature of these documents and filings to attest to what he found and what was shown in the record is that there was absolutely no evidence that  by limited's board voted to allow to administrative leave dissolve at any time and said records show that it was actually the i or cerro that took the action to strike the company off their register for failure to file annual returns for three years there was no evidence that by limited ever transferred out any ip rights if it even had any and that were the subject of this lawsuit there was no evidence of this alleged holding company and x p t who was the alleged recipient of the ip rights after by limited dissolved before the taxi company was incorporated but instead the unrebutted evidence in this case showed that connor family created a proposed play into by licensing limited in february of two thousand and fourteen so after the lawsuit was filed after a poly has brought a motion to dismiss by a limited because it had dissolved almost six years earlier in two thousand and eight and couldn't sue and he created this plaintiff from on excuse me to create ill by licensing from the taxi company larry john is actually not mr family's fault is actually this company set up there was no evidence provided at the district court as to compan  filings that were you know that were done by mr family and they they are they made two arguments actually the evidentiary one is that these think these documents the documents have the signatures on them from mr fairlie from july two thousand and eight had actually been signed in july of two thousand and eight that was easily disproven at evidentiary hearing based on the bar code technology based on the reference to laws of two thousand and thirteen that are on the forms but as the evidence at the hearing showed that was incorrect mr barrister walker testified and judged found in his findings that this was not the method to  mistakes of past filings with the irish companies registration office it wasn't correcting the past he was creating a new company in february of two thousand and fourteen and the evidence was clear that this taxi company that incorporate in july of two thousand and eight had absolutely no relationship to the proposed plaintiff by licensing limited it had been in that context the company had been filing and overturns with the company's registration office its incorporation two thousand and eight until mr family took it over in two thousand and fourteen and every single one of those filings every year showed that it was always named layer can show for a drive it had a business purpose of being a taxi company it had no employees it had no business and it had no assets so all of this was completely contrary to the representations made by propellant that has they can't sue under irish law then it can't sue in a lawsuit in the united states so i'm not sure that as i can explain to you that cent is not clear from our briefing about the july  two thousand and fifteen investigation that's the basis for appellants rule sixty motion for relief from judgment so even though the entire underlying case and proceedings were centered around this purported plaintiff proper party in the case based on what we were finding in the company's registration office the the the pool the series of events went like this connor family first made a dec it's actually not we know you by limited dissolved the board voted to do that back in two thousand and eight and the company is actually called ventures and that's the proper plane that should be the case so here's your amended complaint that we just replaced all the names  registered we point that out so then instead of replying to the motion to amend withdrawing it they file a second motion to amend with a supplemental declaration from mr flannelly that says ok i forgot i forgot  mr walker said something differently about capacity to sue than he had ever said before and i'm not sure what declarations referring to or whether you could tell us what mr walker said or didn't say that it wasn't your honor it was not capacity to sue i believe what appellants are referring to is whether or not that name change alleges name change to change the taxi companies aimed by adventures which show up in the public plea available filings for the company on the serials website so what happened as a barrister walker at our adventure hearing is part of our motion for sanctions is looking at the filings for the cerro for the taxi company does not see a rejected name change requests from two thousand and eight or any time for a request to have the taxi company's name changed by benchers who says they didn't do it so what and so what we did find th name change in february two thousand and fourteen to change the taxi companies name to licensing so the fact judged as one and just one of several bases of you know finding misrepresentations said finally lied about changing the taxi company seemed by the enters because we don't see any change requests for that and they claim it was rejected he forgot about it since it was back in two thousand and eight and there's no name change rejection reflect in the filing says  said that would be reflected on those found to see in the website so what happened in july in july two thousand and fifteen according to plaintiffs is that they went to ireland they hired a solicitor to ask  analysts to go into the metadata in their computer system to look into the filings for the taxi company and at that point they found a name change request that mr family had submitted in february of two thousand fourteen to change the taxi companies named by adventures and it had been rejected and then he sim resubmitted the name change requests but this time it was for by licensing so they pointed that out as a basis it  was both i believe that they raised it in the in a motion for reconsideration or rule fifty nine which they're not appealing but then the actual investigation to the computer metadata happened in july of two thousand and fifteen that's the basis for their rule sixty motion really the evidence in this case does not show that this was simply a series of mishaps by mr family or the appellant's as counsel would like to characterize this was deliberate deception on the court in trying to create a case and to that and judge chabria properly exercised his discretion in entering terminating sanctions for this bad faith conduct and it is very clear in the record that the appellant had every opportunity to defend against the sanctions motion they had noticed that turning sanctions would be imposed and they didn't defend this case they did not have mr family show up the evidence you're hearing as ordered and they provided no witnesses or documents in their defense and so your honor that is something we believe should be upheld i want to just speak very briefly on the fees issue  charged awarded fees to the apple is that we're encouraged to pursue sanctions and i would like to just submit to your honor's that doing agreed with them in an opinion earlier this year in april the blix versus yellowstone mountain club case eight fifty four f there are six twenty six so it's it's centrally same standard  nasco because the sinks will conduct in this case was pervasive it permeated the case it went to a central issue aside whether or not there was a viable plaintive so it's not a limited you know a discovery dispute or something like that where you might want to bring a sanctions motion you're going to be limited to you're not going to get fees for pursuing a bad here we have like in the chambers case a compensatory consul relationship between the  start and the fees awarded which included pursuing the sanctions and in chambers there was quite a large amount of fees in that case it was the ward was nearly a million dollars it covered actually all the fees incurred in that  case including moving for saying chanson holding a evidentiary hearing and the basis for that is it that literally everything that the defendant did at the same party did and in chambers was designed  you know would be dismissed for lack of capacity to sue i your honour's if there are no further questions i would simply ask the court affirmed the district court thank in the finally as for lyric on they were filed each year by a company set up the same way that the filings for by ventures or any of my licensing the one thing that we do know we don't know if the owner signed the documents but we know that the secretary theresa did not sign the documents even though they were signed and submitted so we don't know if they were signed by somebody it  the company set up or some by sign a name for but obviously when every other year her name was signed with an h in it and the other years it was signed without an age it wasn't her signature so these things may have been normally done within the company and filed by a company set up for their customers all they know is they were getting paid and when the judge went through she said specifically were the courts said specifically you buy a limited board of directors and she said voted to dissolve and then there was a list that was put in there and the evidence of some four hundred names that were dissolved as he called a strike off which we consider here in the states as an administrative dissolution for nonpayment or nonviolent obando retards the judge relied on that being specific that those things were required to be done and they weren't and because they