balanced all better now their counsel for the appellants liberty towers and liberty towers one realty proceed yes please proceed thank you your honor your honor this appeal is a case about competing claims to certain property among separate chapter eleven bankruptcy cases and a contested settlement agreement or i should say a settlement agreement that was approved over the objection of one of the chapter eleven debtors and over to the chapter eleven debtors the chapter eleven debtors that own these destroyed your honor her argument is that they got a better deal that's correct your honor but they never really presented the better deal to the bank to the court for approval to the bankruptcy court specifically comment on the fact that it never really seen anything in writing ye say i submit that they did have an opportunity to present present that evidence with appropriate acted the failure to present that but you don't argue that you weren't given the opportunity i'm sorry when the question your honor you don't argue in your brief that you weren't given the opportunity presented the fact that you had been given an opportunity or n c c object to the fact that they had not been given an opportunity to present a pen and ink a real existing counteroffer and that competed with the offer that you'd signed off on and i fact i'm curious i was a state court judge for seven seven years and never saw redemption after a foreclosure sale this case is riddled with craziness or unusualness i'm sorry and you get th and then you do enter into some negotiations with w f is that correct your honor and you offer up to them other properties in lieu of the wire transfer twelve point five million dollars that's correct your honor  settlement agreement with the threshold issue is does that has been making you don't claim that you think you will claim you were coerced you agree to this what you bought into was all settlement with regard to a certain sum of money can withdraw from that that is directly the issue presented by the district court and put a premium on debtors going ahead and agreeing to things and then going out and trying to negotiate better deals right up to the last minute of the court approval who is withdrawn from a somewhat agreement has an opportunity to put the present the evidence that he has he or she has not that i'm not going to tell me about these points but you have the opportunity to present evidence you're asking for a technical evidence you're hearing but you had ample opportunity to present  he said yet you had an opportunity to say to the court that the other deal was better you said we had an opportunity repudiate there's a significantly different matter if you if you have the right to repudiate you cut off it's over then that someone is no longer before the core and whatever new settlement is before the court and i have serious doubts that you can do that because i think that you're not just talking about a group of three to two possible creditors or three creditors this would be a rule for multinational corporations or or huge billion dollar enterprise assume this would stand to redeem on its had i mean this this would this would this would cause all kinds of doubletree with regard to very large bankruptcies if this is the rule that we adopt that a debtor in possession can be huge prior to the ninety nine thousand approval i mean i just can't imagine the world the ba affirmed the bankruptcy court determination in the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement agreement the liberty towers debtor's sought to rescind their support of the settlement agreement that had been approved by the bankruptcy court court that they have a better offer for the purchase of the properties while those who were not reduced to writing reduced to a motion before the court although liberty towers did file a plan in november so many months subsequent to the first hearing on the ninety nine thousand motion that plan was never moved forward it was filed and then the debtor the liberty towers debtor never saw a motion to approve the disclosure statement never sought to move that forward first was  order there were a series of plans followed by amended plans but the nowhere in the liberty towers that are never filed motions after filing those plans in disclosure statements for their approval which would bring it to the court for consideration same with c they did file a contract for the purchase of these ten parcels of property but they never filed the plan that they've had proposed to the court they were going to file and it would be forthcoming that never actually happened but regardless the bankruptcy court did take into consideration each of those proposals in performing the analysis and considering the arabian factors it's significant that the liberty towers debtor's they never wants to post the settlement on the basis that it fell below the lowest point in the range of reasonableness what they did was say we have a different offer just like you're on a saying and the court needs to consider it because we are a debtor and we have responsibility to its estate and the bankruptcy court did that and found that the purported superior officers were not in fact superior officers and therefore the settlement that was presented fell within fell above the lois lane range of reasonableness and was in the best interest of the state and creditors briefly discuss the agreement why is it that richmond was the one who was given contractually view of the already just seek the approval why wasn't why wasn't it the debtor in possession was it because he was it because you weren't possession was because there's been a foreclosure sale or what was the reason for that i don't know that i can state with any certainty what the reasoning was other than administratively it made the most sense for one debtor and richmond as a debtor with the authority under  property still doesn't own the property until there is a closing between richmond and liberty so what you're saying is there was a a true debtor in possession because w f had the have the referees the right before closure  right i believe it's in the hands of the referee not the liberty at this so their interest is that the l t r was truly a debtor in possession and so you kind of settled it out as to who was going to make the application for a decision and i don't have that right in the bank of course oral decision it recognized that richmond as a debtor had the authority under bankruptcy in one thousand nine hundred to bring the motion forward correct thank you thank you for richmond judge wesley i think noted a couple of salient facts there's no fraud it's an agreement was negotiated for months and months at the eleventh hour no it actually at the hearing we were ambushed for the first time with this lack of support it was never a formal motion to rescind after that basically there were months of hearings before judge starr in which he was a revolving door of new arguments they had a constitutional argument they had a three sixty three argument they just keep making new arguments they were given every opportunity in the world to come up with something they came also we do not have them no i'm not so i thought you were supposed to get twelve point five million books twelve point five million dollars in a wire transfer redemption which i find i thought that was unusual but in any event  matter because just facts the case and then you then there was some negotiations about some alternatives or redemption of the cash my understanding is no were no negotiations it was supposed to be twelve point five an electronic funds transfer but in any event the court where whether redemption had or had not occurred was state court was in vegas court there was a stay in place and nobody's made an argument here i'm just trying to sell things out so i understand the whole picture there's been no argument that a right reduction actually occurred and so therefore the this is no longer an asset that on which you have a legitimate claim that you could then assign any complaint any problem you richard had was with you and not with them i believe that's correct we thought that the issue of redemption as your on a pointed out was put to bed with the settlement agreement and i would just point out in the settlement agreement we disagree with what the palin said is a representation by the guarantors now the guarantors of the principles of the debtor and has the representation i believe in six b where they basically say no redemption occur right those guarantors are clearly in prince privity in a good honest i was just trying to understand the relationships that's all we also brought on an action in state court for declaratory judgment to determine whether or not there was a redemption ok i would point out again that you know this is been going on a very long time and we've been paying taxes the whole time and they've been given every opportunity they keep coming up in new arguments we don't believe it's fair and most of these arguments are just hypertechnical your honour's of cut through it i think just a slower estus i'm sorry judge you judge you lower your head and always it would be a good of what was anticipated had asked about the opportunity again there was ample opportunity to to attempt to present evidence to attempt to make arguments he's known for that this was originally on i believe in june or july and her all to make ruling didn't come until january so they were given every possible opportunity thank you thank you and you reserve three minutes for  and i cited a case at one or two cases in my brief that shit shows that it's inappropriate for a debtor to delegate duties likewise your honor it's inappropriate for a debtor to delegate to say richmond a competitor  don't i take it the referees di had been filed in the county clerk's office but there was a referee visa be you and me holding the referees the referee the holder the referees the wins maybe not as the rest of the world but as between you and about twenty three twenty five thing that made me very very very quickly summarize just to say that i believe that we are now in the realm of the smart will decision and believe the very very rare circumstances under which a creditor can seek approval of a settlement