shareholder when all of this was going to go now let me let me for the benefit of the court go back in time and and trace the history mr chesley was the sole shareholder of the firm for many many years license in order to allow the firm to continue to have the right to collect fees on them existing but on resolved pieces of litigation chesley had to transfer ownership of those shares to use someone else he could not as a disbarred lawyer or a non practicing lawyer continue to own the shares that you've read in the papers led to the drafting and preparation of the thing that was called the wind up agreement and under the wind up agreement the ownership of the shares were transferred to tom raimi mr retained for himself a contingent economic interest in the shares so that you know the net effect of li the net income from the firm after payment of creditors and other things would in your to his benefit when that occurred litigation was pending underlying litigation in kentucky but was not yet concluded there was no judgment against m does that answer your question really you know or that can so the injunction freezes the assets of the firm precludes wait schneider mr ray me or anyone from holds the assets as we sit here today well no i know today district court who holds when he has signed all of his then theoretically have complete control over this scheme he has control over the company that has the assets the fees generated by the lawsuits and the like but those were always in flux were they not as to what was owed who was owed so or when you say those were saudis the fees so let's let's go back and talk about the fees when the shares were transferred to tom or amy under the mind of agreement the largest single case that was then outstanding at weight schneider and there was testimony substantial testimony in the record about that was a fannie mae a class action case it was not yet settled it was projected at that time to be potentially a billion dollars case bill market who succeeded mr chesley in terms of lead counsel described that the preservation of the firm's ability to collect that fee was the largest significant motivator to setting up the wind up agreement as it was set up that feel alternately came in at a substantially lower number than was anticipated i don't remember the precise number it was approximately sixteen million dollars there was also a fee in a case called the rocky flats litigation that's a lawsuit that had been pending for twenty twenty nine twenty eight years in colorado there were other pending matters that were outstanding and at that time why why wasn't this arrangement that you described where mr chesley surrenders his bar a license to this new entity gets the feeds and then you set it nets out so that the fees ultimately in newark to mr chesley benefit why isn't that just hadn't circumvention whatever rule required him to surrender his bar license because your honor that's that's i don't believe the law in ohio that did that it's a circumvention we had mr alvin matthews and marion little marion little was the attorney who represented mr chesley before the ohio supreme court negotiated the arrangement with the ohio supreme court for the retirement of his license and developed the wind up agreement ok and then alvin matthews also testified that it broom this probate matter you know how the supreme court ordered that it basically ordered that it be go i mean it would just seem as a matter of playing common sense that we should not be saying the district court abused its discretion  for any reason based on a probate matter that's no longer pending is i mean is that fair or what am i missing well i think i think the problem with it is this the plaintiffs in this case made a number of accusations from the beginning there was a preliminary injunction hearing that was held that was specifically targeted to claims of fraudulent transfer right ok and those claims present taishan of the point of involved a power point presentation where counsel describe things in the powerpoint reference to two depositions that were brief and little more there was substantial evidence presented substantial testimony that is not disputed regarding for example the propriety under ohio law of the wind up agreement range arrangement the fact that mr retaining the economic interest didn't fraudulent couldn't have fraudulent we transferred anything because he kept the same he had the same at economy none of it he in fact enhanced the value the firm by preserving it ability to continue to collect those future fees but it seems like what was going on was that these transactions or whatever you want to call them yes they're preserving mr  benefit but it would seem like it's also making it increasingly difficult for continually for warding the ability of his creditors to be able to obtain that same economic benefit my misunderstanding purpose or effect of i think all this i think that is a misunderstanding i don't think anything about the wind up agreement changed the rights of any creditor to obtain whatever mr two metamorphosis if you like just sort of staying it looks like respectfully it's kind of just staying one step ahead ok so let's that that's a fair question and i'd like to address it the first of two i'll call the metamorphosis metamorphosis number one would be the wind up agreement that we talked about earlier which was crafted in two in the record the affidavit or maybe it was a declaration of mr ray me that explains what clearly what the purpose of that was first of all the that did not in any way alter bayless and chesley which had always been taxed as an s corporation pass through to be treated as a c corporation because when the decision was made to file the a b c because frankly at that point the two choices in in our judgment for an orderly liquidation and to to sort of stop the madness were to file bankruptcy or to file an a so when that a b c was going to be filed we knew for sure mr chesley would not get another penny from that firm and so i couldn't allow tax liability to flow through to not just you know it's not just what what the debtor chooses to assign there are things like you know there are all kinds of ways you know forty seven five fifty one  recall my bankruptcy you know there are there are there are other provisions the asked me would similarly have the ability to pursue claims if there were claims to to recover but but frankly the a what what became very clear to us is the plaintiffs in everyone were frustrated with mr remis role in this six or seven checks he signed a resolution in a stack of bank documents that was described when all of the other documents were  testimony of both mr rayney and mr horner the direct testimony the depositions they put in were that mr ray me made the decisions the final decisions with respect to those matters the know for example and i remember well there are two there are two very very significant steps that were taken and are in the record that were the a mentally opposed by mr  was the payment of all of the money to resolve the weight schneider pension plan which was there were two separate payments of two point four two point five million dollars i'm sorry time i yes i'll try thank you i'll start by trying to answer your question on the beginning of the transfers of the weights snyder ownership in the kentucky court action of course the wind up agreement the transfer of mr chaz lee's shares to thomas raimi was the beginning of that and under that agreement if it actually looked like a legitimate document in the beginning under that agreement mr chesley would transfer his ownership interest in trust and then when the firm was wound up any thing left would be in order to his beneficial interest after any creditors were paid now what the trucker town in kentucky is that that particular agreement was a sham agreement that chesley in fact continued to control the law and can in nearly every way rather than wait for any beneficial interest after creditors were paid and the firm w out up he continued to take millions of dollars out of the as the income came into the firm and he can to continue to make the decisions and i think in our brief we mentioned signed or in the actually the trial court's order went over some of the evidence about him signing checks tying bank talk him and that's one thing so that that was the beginning now moving on that agreement is found to be a sham and so  we then executed on mr chancellor's ownership interest in the firm since the trial court essentially set aside the wind up agreement so we had an execution order like any judgment creditor who were and what have we executed on personal chesley because he was the sole owner of the firm the president of the firm there were no partners he had no partners never had any partners as part of his law firm so we executed on that and that was the beginning of the tangled web that is reflected in the ohio supreme court's opinion on the activity in ohio that led them to issue the second writ against the judge winkler in that case that is specifically on the probate action so fast fast forward hearing that lasted over a two day period of time there's their creation of a new entity trust team and then two days later there's a transfer judge cleveland's courtroom the first time well it was brazen and that's that's what we are yet and i think and of course we didn't find out about it immediately because they didn't advise the court and in fact they were responding to our  to a motion never disclosed to the court what they had done but it did come out and that was the reason why we ultimately filed a motion for a t r o on that transfer those are the assets now held by trustee no effect whatsoever whatsoever on the continuation or on judge clear lines findings on our line clay hood success on the on his finding that we were likely to succeed in that are you saying you're not the transfer not sure who has the assets right now but you just want them to stop who well know the assets if they act and this gets to the point about why the missile of the a b c case has no effect on this action because mr gehring still holds the assets trustee inc still holds the ownership interest so mr so no no action for the assignee to proceed in but he is still left with the assets now mr gehring has sad well the case has been dismissed and he signed an order to transfer the assets to a receiver appointed by judge clearly he's also offered to transfer the assets to back to the trustee think then of course it is that potential transfer back to trustee inc that will cause irreparable harm to the plaint is not just a strong probability i would argue but it is it is beyond any doubt that he would once again dissipate or fortunately transferred the assets of white snyder i guess just one can textural question i mean if if a credit to her substantial creditor sees that the debtor is moving assets all over the place and correct me if i'm wrong but why wouldn't the credit just force that debtor involved terribly in the bankrupt federal bankruptcy and then start just unwinding these transfers as fraudulent project transfers i'm not a bankruptcy lawyer but i can tell you where it started it started with a very simple execution order transfer your interest to us to satisfy the judgment that is was the easiest cleanest most expeditious and least expensive way to proceed so that was reasonable but what happened after we got that execution order is when the real trouble started in ohio we were finished and kentucky thought the case was over but what happens instead is the last lawsuits began in state court first i get sued and some of my clients get sued to prevent us from domesticating the judgement in ohio for taking any action to collect the judgment or even conducting any discovery that's the first supreme court opinion in ohio that is referenced in the judge wink i mean you're defending it so i mean that perhaps your attitude as it is i'm just curious as a bring an end to all this moving around stuff yes and that's what we have asked for now when after the preliminary injunction hearing is part of that we asked for a receiver to be appointed because of all of the cascade of events that could happen given that mr gehring the ass and he was handpicked by white schneider and because of his position in the probate action that we were not predators we really didn't have any rights to recover anything and so of course judge cleveland wound up finding well based on that position but it's easy to see where the irreparable har about any debt and yet nevertheless this probate action is filed which is supposed to be a bankruptcy like proceeding so because the acid he took the position that that the plaintiffs were not creditors that's where the irreparable harm is and continues to be if it's transferred back to the same person who has repeatedly transferred the interest in the past is the federal action over you know i mean are you d in terms of seeking relief there oh no this is this is this is i wouldn't say it's not near the end because we got the preliminary injunction but now that action has been court's decision on this appeal on his injunction before moving forward with the case so that's essential because assets are being even though they're not supposed to be transferred they're being dissipated because nobody's in charge of  anything ok you know insurance for twenty nine cars and storage fees and tax claims that are rolling in because nobody is running in minding the ship meanwhile my clients you know are suffering harm because assets are being dissipated because there's no receiver to try to wind anything up and deal with any any claims from any third parties as my time if i could just address a few points that were raised in the apple e's moment and ask you this fundamental question what's the problem with mr chose me or why wouldn't you agree to having your receiver to make a couple of points we talked about the transfer of assets ok i just want to be clear because this needs to be clear on the record the assets have never been transferred anywhere they stay in which neither bayless with the exception of the the assignment to the a b c to a public forum supervised by corps the assets of never moved are you talking about in a title meant is what's getting shifted around here it's the the plaintiffs have a judgment against mr chesley their access to mr chesley assets has never changed through that process we heard about a direct no your your honor there is a lot of of generalized i would say misinformation out there there is substantial money both i'm just talking about access i  mean they're complaining they've had zero access and that hasn't changed that's well it they don't as we sit here today they don't have an execution order in ohio they've had a double mess to cait a judgment for two years they haven't done what they need to do we heard about a kentucky order the execution order that order is not number one that forcible against wade schneider that's been concluded in nevada it's it's the interpretation they've offered was rejected in colorado and that's the case under ohio law more important time is out i'm sorry i saw you