could just jump in because i think this will help me with both cases i'm going to fast for the next case for a moment and let's imagine that we were to rule against you in that case just like understand the relationship if we were to rule against you in the other case which i will call the fourteen case what happens to these cases they just go away well the other cases got two causes of action one of them involves the dissolution over a which is cause of ok so they're independent what you're saying i'm saying the first cause of action were alleging that you theory is interest was paid to the tune of several million dollars and was seeking damages for that the second cause of action is for abuse of process on the grounds that this dissolution order was obtained were saying that the dissolution order that was obtained there is no statutory or case authority for it so there is no subject matter jurisdiction which makes that unconstitutional it was obtained in the motion in the main bankruptcy case rather  be personally served on called wallace or as a motion in the main case once his attorney or its attorney has appeared  if i'm wrong but i think you're asking about the eight one case have if we decided in the eight one case that in fact the dissolution goes forward as are so graceful way is that basically just understanding the  review that the only relevance of that case to these seventy eight and eighty one cases is the second cause of action of that complaint involves the same order of this this illusion o so i see so the position if i'm correct that the dissolution order is constitutionally avoided we don't even have to be on appeal to get it set aside we could of avoided taking an appeal in just a minute and the most just plain wrong i mean in general the fact that something is unconstitutional doesn't mean you know follow ordinary procedures and you can come back twenty years  in there and there are different things i mean if someone says my fourth amendment rights were violated twenty years ago that's unfortunate but there's nothing we can really do about it now necessarily vote is that right yes ok and so and what issue was equitably note the question of whether it was timely or the underlying question  of our motion for an extension of time they should have made it in the in the motion where we were seeking to overturn the dissolution order but they didn't they made it in the wrong case and i assumed that that the district court said well they made it in the timely in this case but i'm saying that the the appeal for us to turn any difference whether the appeal is time they're not time i think that's what the court merits so what's wrong with that first of all the order is constitutionally void if it was and it was made without serving my client without that's not true and you know you admit that you certainly had knowledge of it and so it's not constitutionally viii you have a technical reason why you think you want to involve the statute but in terms of whether you knew about it and had chance to object to it and all that you  no progress was made toward dissolving the corporation there is no harm to anybody such as a chapter eleven plan of where things were sold monies were paid real estate was acquired all those things happened in the plan none of that happened this order just standing alone which one of the cases the said for me to read said you have to take each case by itself standing four motions for reconsideration in this motion was made separately because this is the only one that involved constitutional issues so this was separated as we were three other ones know there's something about the last day the peals father charlie was hired in for someone didn't have an account to file things but the court had to use someone else's account number can you speak to that sure let me quote from  bankruptcy court and and have permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur as to render it in equitable for this court to consider the merits of the appeal  acting diligently we primitive a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur we didn't so what's your view of the law that you can literally act i don't know what the antonym for diligen nothing and as long as it shakes out a certain way whether they're been changed or not at any time you can get back in and under the or because the purpose of equitable moving this is to protect people that things happened you've said the only thing that batters is at last you can put the puzzle back no i'm rooting for work in light of the language i just read and i'll punch a language i quoted in my brief that it doesn't make any difference if you don't see if it doesn't cause a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur so that this court cannot reverse the order you're seeking to reverse or grant rel question so the question is the dissolution and he's trying to pull the dissolution order out of these two other out of the sale order and the settlement right and i think that it's important just briefly for the court to understand and appreciate that this is not just an isolated order that happened after no litigation we're talking about a litigation that began in two thousand and seven we've went through numerous different attorneys on on on appellate side every time there's new attorneys a different theory came into place this order that they're trying to appeal is a result of the failure to adhere to their own plan in the bankruptcy so everything that happened thereafter is the result of their own good in actions which included the dissolution of the dissolution order the first there was the november sale water at that point in november two thousand and eleven all of the assets were set for auction the sale took place the only assets of the corporation we're gone cobol us only exists right now to sue my client that's literally the only thing that they do is sue my client so to say that there is nothing else happened well they don't own the patent anymore they can't sell the product that they tried to sell they don't own the rights to it so the idea that nothing happened is just not true so i wanted it didn't happen with the dissolution but that's you know that's mr gold and i think i speak to that but i believe that you know paperwork was signed and the the company was liquidated so whether it was nothing contrary to those orders and have been sued constantly in this forum in new jersey in orange county every which way sideways and we just really are asking the court to put an end to it because this is been going on since two thousand and seven this company has no assets this is there's no grounds to go back and undo all of the various decisions and start this case over again there are there are not i'm happy to answer any further questions give vishal color  but i really think our paper speak speak to it and i don't want to bore you and walk through my timeline and all of the various things but i think here we were directly on point with the fact that there was no diligent attempt to take to seek a to look offhand there's been a lot of filings here and i can't recall whether or not i would not take everything at face value i would want to to look at that before i make a representation to the court whether or not they actually ruled on it because it's my understand my understanding disruptive by doing that i did i wanted to be ready not disruptive but i remember being a lawyer in that position during very restive and my may please the court my name is jeff gordon of la belle while i'm called an freedman on behalf of it's your position that we don't look at the that we should be looking at the dissolution question separately and that's but rather in the context of of the entire time and that's why it's  dissolution the settlement agreement had a provision in it that was approved by the court regarding dissolution and the issue under such a solution ever you are i don't know but if you look at the what the settlement agreement required it did not require by the language in the agreement that the dissolution occur what was required and obviously this was a deal between the trustee of the estate and the other parties was a trustee execute the document  mootness et cetera is worth the things that were contemplated the order in the agreement carried out the thing wasn't the dissolution the thing was the a state executing the certificate of the corporation may or may not be dissolved and he may or may not be able to pursue the other case and that's his problem and a separate problem the other case but your i mean your your argument is that we don't know with or if the corporations for just doesn't matter for this purpose could no correct and it doesn't matter from the trustee is respected because she did what she needed to do to get the consideration for the estate without going into the issues of the other case of what who has standing or doesn't it irrelevant to the trustee whether  actually got dissolved or not what's relevant is that she performed what the estate the obligations the state needed to she has everything in the settlement and sale order happened and that's all that matters and that can't be redone perry again yes run it and  the truth that the truth of the law i don't like that stuff the way that's the reality is your honor is that when i represent trustees i'm a trustee of myself you don't want to create more obligations of you cannot ensure so california has a bunch of you know whether california actually dissolve the company or doesn't involve a company sort of out of our hands for so i tried to minimize the obligation of the estate but but be specific  what you don't know you're on doesn't say that there's a settlement agreement that says the trustee shall file a certificate and that settlement agreement was approved by what we call the settlement or then there was a sale  order it's a paragraph in the sale order which is the subject of this this appeal that says not what the settlement says it says that the that the trustee shall cause the corporate existence of cobol is to be dissolved as soon as reasonably possible and the trustee cannot  that that's what they're saying but when this dissolution order came to pass that's what stopped my client from being able to sell stock because they assets were sold etc but nothing's happened to any third parties that we're relying on the order we're trying to get reversed and that's the comprehensive change of circumstances that prevents this court