my name is sid hording here representing wal mart stores in wal mart louisiana l l c and will harvey the bankruptcy court in this case disclose that asset to the bankruptcy court and his creditors as judge jones said in in the race appear your crew boats mr parker was allowed to have his cake and eat it too judge jones recognized from language in the same case that such an outcome would suggest that a debtor consider disclosing his assets only after he  caught concealing them the remedy fashion by the court by the bankruptcy court puts tobin parker in exactly the same position that he would have been in had he properly disclosed his assets to the bankruptcy court and to the creditors this court in a long long line of cases has consistently judicially a stop debtors who have failed to disclose asset to the bankruptcy court this court repeatedly has rightfully noticed that the integrity of the bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy court system is at stake in cases like this and the consequences of allowing debtor who intentionally fail to follow the rules and fail to disclose to proceed would do devastating horn to the bank reps and systems integrity i would like to discuss with a court on judicial t question there's no question that it was an appropriate remedy in this case the bankruptcy court itself had no problem finding that all the points had been met in fact the bankruptcy court said there are compelling reasons or the reasons supporting traditionalist stop or are compelled but in spite of that the bankruptcy court said well for equitable reasons we're not going to grant that really in this case and now the court well knows the elements of the position inconsistent with the prior position when mr parker represented to the bankruptcy court or implied that represented that he had no assets other than those which had been disclosed that was an implied misrepresentation and was inconsistent with his present position of currently pursuing a lawsuit the court accepted the prior position the court granted him bankruptcy it gave him the benefit of that equitable remedy protected him from his creditors and allowed him and discharged he was discharged after that the failure to disclose was not inadvertent the debtor could keep the money from the undisclosed asset as a as opposed to submitting it to the bankruptcy state having distributed to the creditors to whom he owes money in this case mr tobin parker actually knew he had a duty to disclose and i think a timeline would be helpful the chapter thirteen was filed in february two thousand and nine it was confirmed in january two thousand and ten and he was ordered to pay in the neighborhood of seven hundred dollars a month to the bankruptcy court he had an accident in december two thousand and ten and in april two thousand and eleven he signed he met with a personal injury lawyer signed two contracts one for the tour case one for the workers compensation case both of those contracts had a head identical language to this effect client represents that he currently is not in that he had no bank he was not in bankruptcy didn't contemplate bankruptcy now this was at the same time that he was paying seven hundred dollars a month to the bankruptcy court i would suggest i would suggest it is probably his biggest financial obligation that he was paying on a monthly basis and he chose not to disclose it twice now eighteen months later in december two thousand and twelve now his lawyer wrote about a two line letter to the trustee and to the bankruptcy lawyer saying in essence he has personally be also didn't go into detail it didn't say it could be wor five hundred thousand dollars no information whatsoever but that was not sufficient according to the bankruptcy route of the bankruptcy law requires specific conduct t alert creditors and the bankruptcy court everybody has to be and you have to follow a schedule with the court the schedule shows the asset value of the asset and it's distributed to the creditors so they can see what their assets offer and amended plan with me adopted through which the bankruptcy trustee could distribute the assets now in this  we want to notify you that parker has a personal injury lawsuit pending i think it was literally a two sentence letter to the trustee who is bankruptcy laws nothing about the nature of the claim nothing about the value and it was the schedule was never amended this was never incorporated into the plan the creditors and never found out about it nor did the bankruptcy court if you're trying creditor shouldn't get anything now i'm saying that in the prior case the solutions case remedy was fashioned in which the trustee was a way out to pursue the loss of retained counsel if necessary and make the creditors whole that the equitable remedy in that fashion influence and it had been done in prior cases as well in the reed case for example which was chapter seven kids so no what i'm not suggesting is that the creditors go if they had to because this court has already fashion any recovery would go to the creditors so what's the what what's the difference well the difference would be in the message so to speak the difference would be in the integrity of the bankruptcy court of the equitable nature of the bankruptcy proceeding the difference would be in following the rules and in doing what's right and the duty to disclose one's assets judge jones as i said before pointed out if the de requested it would reversed and direct the trial court to authorize the trustee to pursue the personal injury losses and stop the debtor who failed to disclose from pursuing the losses how would that affect wal mart wal mart would obviously pay whatever it took to satisfy both the does it make if he says you are the trustee see if the money goes to the creditors well the difference is is that we have a debtor who the court who is engaged in conduct that this court has repeatedly held it could tolerate because of the message it would say and and this judge jones says the message would be you don't have to disclose until you get caught then you can disclose so if this court your the remedy he doesn't get to keep the money i mean are saying that how large is how much is easy and secured creditors climbs here his claims unsecured creditors claims of unsecured i don't know the total that are about fifty two thousand a total of fifty two thousand i'm sorry but he would get if you get out of a large bird he would he would get oh he would get a good bit of money let's say for example five hundred they had it been disclosed schedule it said the value of the asset five hundred thousand dollars well under the court rules two hundred fifty thousand who don't trust me you would certainly have an asset i mean you would certainly have a solvent estate you would have a bankrupt the state of approximately two hundred eighty thousand dollars with debts of fifty two thousand dollars everybody could be made whole i would suggest to the court that once the  judge or specifically mentioned student life if he if he were to get a recovery this would get and secured creditors including the student mind the remedy fashion by the bankruptcy court put parker in exactly the same position that he would have been h make you pay the trustee or the individual the defile mart to watch walmart well obviously the debts are less than five hundred thousand dollars so that's one obvious benefit to the creditor of course to the alleged toward caesar but the court has said this whole process is for the integrity of the court the bottom line you think the trustee will not be as active in  no less than eight times in the court has repeatedly ruled in less egregious circumstances than theirs that because of the damage that would that with my verbal heart bankrolling that crusade what's the financial interest in wal mart to pay you to do this i am very curious it would have stopped the lawsuit so you're saying it the lawsuit would not go forward the lawsuit would go forward to the extent to collect and pay the creditors but not he would not get the debt or harm are would not have to pay anything beyond the fifty two thousand dollars and the attorney say presumably there is a difference to one mark yeah there's a financial difference ok anything yes ok yes they'll be a financial difference no doubt so you're asking and bottom line to stop the debtor from anything but yun it's either th foul you've answered the question yes thank you dress the last question about how or why wal mart contains and i'll answer based on their brief that the bankruptcy judge abused its discretion my abused his discretion the first component is that there are two or instances in which the bankruptcy judge committed legal era and if i'm permitted to do so it permitted and thirdly wal mart postulates that the remedy that was provided is based upon a legal error now the that the failure to him vote judicial stocco would open would quote go against the purpose of protecting the integrity of the court and wal mart of is more or less consumed in the determination as to where the elements of judicial stop will have been made the answer to the question of what is the judicial sto l remedy attempting to protect i think gives us guidance on this specific issue because especially the second element subsumes of this because what is it we're trying to protect  from well those that those three elements tell us exactly to protect us from a debtor against whom judicial stop always going to be asserted from taking a position that is clearly different in a prior occasions than today and the court of us accepting it before so that is what we are trying to protect the whether or not we have to come to the point of meeting this element and so forth  the issue of of some kind of affront to the integrity of the judicial process that's dealt with in the elements then we know in addition to there after that there must be an equitable of value why should and you don't get disqualified for not equitable evaluation because you made some short of policy in location finally in we were do we do we come to the peppercorn issues how much how little and so forth i don't think we need to in last some sort of secondary element on to the analysis that is almost not measurable wal mart followed the clerical way judgment action and wal mart asked the bankruptcy court to give an equitable remedy to wal mart wal mart had the burden of proof and in making that leading up burden of proof it has to not only make to four elements it has to show sufficient evidence that would indicate that there's no reason under a judicial i'm asking me a bankruptcy court equitable analysis not to apply the point here is this in its brief wal mart cites  and clearly a declaratory judgment action which can be filed outside of a bankruptcy court and is not a cause of action arising under bankruptcy for that only have related to jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court that's not even remotely related to the whole analysis of russia now of a little quick so the bottom line is i think wal mart is conflating the general requirement for good faith you didn't what the bankruptcy judge said really was it i'm not going to consider the effect on wal mart that that's not going to be what drives the result this court has had some pretty strong language about that as a matter of fact and bl providing to personal injury defendants with the windfall they seek is not a necessary nor desirable so i certainly don't think the judge is a statement about not letting the affect on wal mart drive his decision is certainly has clearly indicated that that is not the law that part of the bankruptcy law and the purpose of it is to insure a maximum distribution to the creditors in the bankruptcy court should consider that the next basis for wal mart's contention that the judge committed arrow is its argument that there was factual error and we know that to satisfy the clear air a test of the findings of facts must be plausible and conversely if we do from come to the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed as waste management i submit that there is no way one could review this record on the facts and come to that conclusion as a matter of fact if i have a very differently that the trustee closed it cases without changing injury claims being resolved after verifying that there was no resolution judgment of settlement that the  would be discharged in those circumstances that this really personal injury attorneys were not required to file a motion to be employed until the settlement and my only opponent the trustees testimony  was serving at the time besides it was very clear quietly very trying and probably a little uncomfortable for a couple of points of her testimony clearly supports those findings of fact that were made by the bankruptcy judge and finally wal mart and their brief contended that there was an error in finding of facts but when the bankruptcy judge sa nothing would have been changed and that the issues involved in that conclusion is that unsecured creditors would have received nothing more and that's just true and in fact the side student loan if i remember correctly i think in the record is the trustees fall accounting it was not much money probably thirty eight hundred dollars or or something along with there so judicial interest no land use and not a significant amount of loan creditor done he could have come in and said i'm aware that there is just personal enter case it may or may not lead to any money may or may not lead to money while the case is being administered but if it does a lot more money and  you know if they were to come in mr parker had followed the amendment to the schedules and they would have made it there for all they would have gotten is something to the effect well if their money comes before the case is over then maybe you can get your money i will say i don't really accept that premise though because specifically section thirteen twenty two the five provide for a debtor to treat loam term clients claims that would extend beyond the bankruptcy by paying them according to their contract or maybe not even paying but treating t case and say debtor the bankruptcy code told you you could treat us this way you could classify us separately and deal with this pursuant to the underlying contract but we won't even want you to change that tail interest and it would have never made any difference whatsoever whether mr parker head of personal injury claim or lottery winnings or anything they get paid what the bankruptcy code says they get paid not more latest that's how you treat that secured point the bottom line is that especially if we look back at the testimony of besides the comments of the court there's no way that i can see excuse that and then finally  wal mart and its argument says that the remedy is based on legal error and this is this is this is how how that goes the is paid out in connection with it and from then i don't believe there's any law to that effect here in this circuit wal mart didn't cite any i would first to say that blue didn't that's exactly what happened the case had been closed the plan had been paid out but money was to come into that case and moment there is also a jurisprudence within the fifth circuit in bankruptcy cases one i will is in the southern district of texas decided by a judge texas judge bohem in the wellborn case addressed a situation where there was a class action were coerced some cases were still pending some cases i think had been dismissed and some places had been completed and he provided the remedy of simply reopen in the bankruptcy of cases and pursue it to his order distributing that money that came in on a class action case there is a case from the middle district of georgia where i decide i'm suggesting here they were faced with this money came in after the case was completed the bankruptcy court in a part by this court says you know this this  this provision of about distribute about the plant payments that's just not implicated we're not talking about conforming apply and so the matter that it's too late to me on the plane now  i'm running short on time so i would just say that i believe that section three fifty of the bankruptcy code clearly gives the authority to make that distribution it's not  it's not chapter specific and certainly such and one hundred five in connection with that is it more momentum to do it and that's covered in the memorandum that i filed i would also suggest and again this is covered in the memorandum that i filed that is that women be is impossible we don't have jurisdiction because the only jurisdiction of valuable would be related to if the getting that money cannot possibly be given to creditors or mr parker or whatever then they can't consume believe that the outcome of the case so there's no jurisdiction that is my argument that i would like very briefly because the last few things that i would like to say is i would like to point out that is remember in this case mr parker called his lawyer and told him and fifty percent had to be given to the trust state and gave specific instructions to parker to cooperate with bailey and for bailey to continue and tell her if they got the money and send it to thank you sir you're welcome had the debt been disclosed the outcome would have been different the trustee in her trial testimony page one thirty six and then again on one forty and in other places said in response to a question he said what would you have done had you known there was a million dollar case or potentially million dollar case and she said well we would have obviously held it open i would have filed whatever it took so they did the claim is not abandon the assets not abandon we held it open until the bitter resolution so that's what would have happened had it been disclosed when the bankruptcy court said it wouldn't made a difference would have made a difference we respect submit that that was eroded and that was eroding application of fact to law i would also point out that this this particular this two separate cases yes your honor and suggested that he told his lawyer well this court has consistently held that reliance on a lawyer is not in the sense that would be c so there's been four separate cases in which the debtor in which typically they say a lot tell them and they didn't do it all more they told me i didn't have to do it and hadn't worked discords consistently said given what's at stake for the integrity of this court doesn't work it does not work  at the end it's all about equity it's all about equity is this a better case of that where the trustee was notified in the pool yes with the trustees were notified that's an obese or discretion ever the less they said it was own the remedy available in terms of allowing the debtor to pursue the lawsuit in the trustee coming in after the fact and saying to them and somehow taking from the debt are enough money to pay off the creditors i've never seen it done in any jurisdiction much less the fifth circuit although influence and in read the court has authorized the trustee to proceed which we discussed earlier but to allow a debtor to do it it's never been authorized it's never been done before so there's no wall in it i would just point to the court that some of the legal impediments with the in mr parker's order of discharge that prohibited any attempt any debtor to come after him for these debts and number two bankruptcy code eleven u s c thirteen twenty two a one provides a debtor has no responsibility to make funds from specific assets available for parker his testimony was untruthful immunity respects not entirely truthful that he was well coached that his veracity was dubious and we would suggest that represents that he has unclean hands and should