and ministration and the system instance the courts dismissal of my client's action resulted in the exact opposite effect the result of the court's order is the entire extinguishment of my client's case both in the united states and district court that opportunity is relevant to the consideration opportunity should be entirely relevant to the nd circuit law on international comedy abstention the law is that a parallel proceeding is required as a threshold bankruptcy proceeding might be we have said in bankruptcy proceedings the pertinent question is whether they had the right to submit claims in the in the farm proceeding we said that in all state life i mean the parallel proceeding concern arise in the non bankruptcy context doesn't it  it comes from the colorado river with your honor that in the context of most of the opinions this court has written that is the case but there is no pronouncement of that as a matter of law and if i could direct the court's attention to  something insolvent foreign car corporation may be required to assert their claims against a foreign bankrupt before a duly convened foreign bankruptcy tribunals you had the opportunity to do that and did not that's the state which is the case which both the district court and defendants principally rely the court it's expressly found and i quote from all state there was no indication that appellant's would be prejudiced if they're required to maintain their actions in australia  because there are already pending securities actions in australia that they had filed so there was a parallel action and the reason why i think a lot of the nd circuit court haven't squarely addressed this matter is because in those opinions that was not a dispute there was no issue so it wasn't discussed when there have been had the opportunity to be heard in canadian bankruptcy and just ignored you now get to bring an action in the united states courts that seems to fl the principle of international comedy rather than supporting it respectfully honor i don't think it does for two reasons one is if you look at the factual sequence of events which i can delve into more importantly the narrow issue for the court is whether international comedy was properly granted in this case and international comedy does require a parallel proceeding the whole concept is to bring claims together two dollars to one dollar form here there was never filed a claim in canada you never litigated anything on camera appeared in canada and in response to us commencing this action in us district court banner immediately went and within three weeks got an order extinguishing our claims all together so how can they see through one side of their mouth we want to send all claims in canada and then the other side they canada they should provided us with a venue or an avenue to get to can it particularly in a case like this if you look at what happened in terms of the facts been row is still in existence they own one of the largest gold mines in africa they have eighteen billion dollars of gold in the ground there is five hundred million dollars in the new york stock exchange and in december of two thousand and eighteen get delisted from the new york stock exchange that delisting did not add up in my client's mind for what was represented to him he felt he was misled and misrepresented immediately engaged counsel to perform an investigation we performed in a nest a geisha and throughout january and february which included sending people into the d r s see which was dangerous and from the investigation we discovered securities fraud and we f complaint a very well pled detailed complaint detailing the securities fraud which is filed as soon as possible in our in march of two thousand and eighteen and within three weeks the canadian court issued an order discharging our claims all together my client is not an instance where my client had sat on his hands the supreme court law from colorado states that international comment should be judged on a case by case basis in this instance my client did not sit on his action here and we thought it appropriate if the canadian proceeding or the defendants sought to send it to cannot they would have to come to the district court and convince the the district court to transfer our case to canada and if that had happened this would be a different scenario but in response to our filing the actions from this crime because in response to us following the action then i went and got an order precluding us from going to canada they didn't come to us and say hey please your honor bring this case to canada they said no you can't come to canada and that got an order from from the district court oh i'm sorry from that the insolvency proceeding in canada they immediately rant into the court in canada and in the three weeks from the date of our filing of the complaint that in order extinguishing our case all together and you heard in that or not no never heard never appeared never presented and i thank you we served with the order that focus on drugs use question as to why you did so from the country it's not yours i mean so what was the problem were not obligated the simple answer your honor is that we brought the case to the district court and r p and we took a calculated risk that it was it was the judges it was the district court judges case it was their case we brought it there our position is she had the authority over the case and we would do whatever she ordered in bandra corporation wanted us in canada asked the question of whether our case law says that you do have an obligation to take that st help me out i'm my understanding from the records that banner's bankruptcy counsel told your client's counsel i don't know if that was you at the time that hearing on the reorganization plan was scheduled for march th two thousand and eight and you were given an opportunity corning to the record to participate in that that's even though you hadn't filed that claim whatever why did you not take advantage of that again we're not obligated to we had a pending action regarding the subject matter in federal court and our position is we have no obligation to  that they should come to the district court and ask for the case to be transferred to canada that's what they wanted to do which is what what they did and your view on our precedent that international road where you  heard in the in the canadian proceeding that predators of an insolvent foreign corporation may be required to search their claims before duly convened foreign bankruptcy tribunals if they're given if the district court give an opportunity they should be given a present opportunity to litigate those claims and can i would say that we were not given well you could have though gone into the creditors proceeding in canada and asserted these claims you never appeared in anything in canada for after and you are now asking us to assume that the canadian courts wouldn't have heard you won anything oh i'm not asking for your honor they say there's an order d good afternoon and may it please the court joseph gallagher of harris st laurent for defendant appellee banner of corporations in john clarke the district court was right to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds of international comedy this court has long held it appropriate to decline to hear creditor claims that are the subject of foreign bankruptcy proceedings because this court explained in all state life insurance which has remained good law for over two decades such deference quote enables the claims i say to that that that was the normal function of a canadian bankruptcy proceeding the when did you do that we filed for bankruptcy on december nd two thousand and seventeen on fit in early february of two thousand and eighteen the canadian court issued what's called a claims procedure water which invited people to submit the canadian equivalent of the proof of claim and apply for the canadian equivalent to never of an adversary proceeding to hear their  the day after or the two days after the bankruptcy proceedings were filed one of the appellant's mistral a pardon wrote to the canadian judge advising him of his views on the ability to obtain justice in canada and the propriety of those proceedings  they had noticed they have conceded at the lower court level that they had notice and so what this was was the order at the end of the bankruptcy proceeding extinguishing all claims and it extinguished their claims if i'm quoting correctly because of noncompliance with the claim procedure order that's correct or at the language of the of the canadian court or is that the declaration of mr dietrich that is the language of the canadian court the mis much later on in the appendix and i think i think it will come up at some point ok with just to circle back to the point that you were making judge reggie this was it essentially the order confirming the plan at the end of a bankruptcy that that there is a standard to review more approaching de novo but the cases that they cite for that proposition are an app is it because all of the cases involving a standard review more close to de novo are in fact other forms of extent of other forms of abstention operating under other and sentient doctrines including the worker feltman doctrine which shows up several times in these cases so the standard view here is abuse of discretion and judge for had the discretion to dismiss the claims opportunity to do so before the decision because the claims were not extinguished until several weeks after this case was filed and more than two months after they were st given notice of the pendency of the canadian bankruptcy cited in our briefing i believe including all state itself where the australian bankruptcy in that case was ongoing it was not concluded at the time and the court in an abundance of caution and out of deference based in international comedy decided to allow the bankruptcy case to proceed and the logic behind that is state sound over the years you know this court has said in the victrix case from many years ago the equitable and orderly distribution of a debtors property requires assembling all claims against the limited assets in a single proceeding of all creditors could not be bound a plan of reorganization would fail and that's exactly the the idea that was motivating at least from the ridge that she wrote on the page judge fails opinion that all of the claims here in order to effectively deal with creditors and the debtors obligations should be put into one proceeding that was filed in canada  know mr caliber has said that his action in the southern district of new york was the st filed action because it was filed on or around march th two thousand and eighteen but the bankruptcy proceedings itself preceded that by over three with that said i'd like to talk about the standard for extend comedy just a little bit to make sure that we have it on the record here it's been extensively brief but comedy may be granted when it's shown that the foreign court is a court of competent jurisdiction and that the laws of public policy in the form state and the rights of its residents will not be required that's from page one hundred and ninety nine of the all state decision and the law governing these matters are laid out on page one hundred and ninety nine dollars ten cents of that decision now nowhere in the proceedings bill lower even in the briefing before this court has anyone challenge the bona fides of the canadian bankruptcy proceedings the canadian bankruptcy court is not some star chamber that does not afford due process two parties appearing before it in fact the judge has concluded in her opinion that the due process protections created by the canadian bankruptcy court provided in the statute which is the canadian equivalent of chapter eleven and set forth in the initial order do comport with due process and there is no basis to disturb her conclusion on that and i don't think  any one issue that came up earlier in the argument here is the existence of a parallel proceeding and i'd like to hearken back to judge reggie questioning there was no parallel proceeding here because the plaintiffs decided not to engage in one after being given every opportunity to appear in the canadian court but more importantly the law itself does not require that parallel proceeding in the foreign insolvency context and this court made head because you would not have a single forum that one party could be sure that a debtor would be sure they could dispose of all of its claims  n one other issue that has come up both in this argument but more in the briefing because of the citation to colorado river water is the exceptional circumstances rule there do not need to be exceptional circumstances in the foreign insolvency proceeding to justify a dismissal of the case on grounds of international comedy largely because doing so as i've said several times here would upset the very purpose of international comedy thank you very much thank you very much  dismissing this action on these grounds and not requiring a parallel proceeding you're effectively just recognizing an order of dismissal from a foreign bankruptcy court which cannot be done and that's why are so respectfully urge this court to