make please please court your honors good morning my name is william adams i represent the appellate jam cap lending one l l c we are here today before you to challenge the aug seventeenth two thousand and fifteen ruling of the lower court dissolving a preliminary injunction we do not bring an issue like this before the court lightly but we bring this matter to this court's attention because we believe the trial court abused its discretion in three distinct ways first of all the other seventeen twenty fifteen order which forms the basis of this appeal is internally inconsistent secondly the manner in which the trial court saw fit to dissolve the preliminary injunction that was in place for two years provided no opportunity for the parties to brief or address the consequences of such a dissolution and three the result of the dissolution of the preliminary injunction leads to an it logical and an equitable result the first point on the internal inconsistency the court was addressing a request by the remaining parties in the case seeking to relieve  diversified of the funds that it admitted it had no ownership or entitlement to in favor of crop usa the defendant who was contractually owed those sums so that they in turn could provide them to my subagents were never parties to that isn't that the problem because you're asking the court to hold authority over this fun when the litigation before the court couldn't resolve the question of where the money should go well your honor not true the litigation wasn't going to resolve where the money should go to litigation could resolve where the money could go yes it could have the subagent claims be litigated because the subagents obligations are governed solely by a contract between crop usa and those subagents and they're not parties to the case of a don't they don't have a right to speak to that issue they have a right to pursue any claim that they see fit against their contract and party crop usa they need to do that in the context of this litigation but the issue was a whether or not crop usa had defaulted on its obligation to jab cap and whether or not that default resulted in a perfection of a security interest by my client in those funds and you rather complex settlement structure between crop usa and gen cap the court will appreciate that we are in a perfect situation where where we are in a court involved judgment collection proceed which the lower court is is involved in as been advising on and maintains jurisdiction over it in order that the judgment proceeds can be maximized reducing the liability exposure of the remaining defend nt in the case with the roots with the objective of ultimately resolving the case the issue of diversifies obligation to crop usa is governed exclusively by its sales agency agreement of july twenty one two thousand and eleven between diversified and crop usa diversified stands no liability exposure whatsoever to any sub agent by virtue of paying the money that they contractually to crop usa number one or by paying over fans like a device to get the money without the sub agents having a chance to speak to it the subagent have an absolute right to speak to it they have a right by by virtue of their access to the courts if they have a dispute you could have brought the man you could have made this in effect an interpreter action apparently elected not to do so there's no claim against diversified anymore why is it the court should bother to to use its own authority to tie the money up in diversifies hands when you're in a position to take care  yourself because the outcome of this case was intended to resolve the issue of the rightful owner of these particular program isn't because you didn't name the subagents or not in the case the subagents did not were not a necessary party to the resolution of the issues that were before the court your honor well you didn't litigate those issues right you settled with crappy usa so the district court dismissed the breach of contract or granted summary judgment to diversify your breach of whether there's a dismissal of taylor or an ultimate adjudication of the fraud based claims that will bring the case to a close at which point the issue of diversified liability to jam cap will be taken up on appeal you know that meantime we have the courts continuing authority over the settlement process process the court is standing over and supervising the settlement activities your honor so we have a lot of activity in this case in spite of the fact that we do have stipulated judgments from a number of the defendants so by dissolving the preliminary injunction that just allows diversified now has control of money is no longer enjoined from  problem with you ira is that it it doesn't resolve the issue that was before the court when the preliminary information was put into place in fact it invites the most of a multiplicity of litigation in any location that a sub agent wishes to initiate litigation issued the district courts as there was a breach of contract claim pending against diversified which it's now resolved the preacher of contract claim that was in the that's correct direct that is correct your honor the only issue that remains for diversified is its continuing obligation under the terms of the preliminary injunction that remained in place and it has no it wasn't a signatory to th correct around that so all it is is has a pile of money which is owed to someone at this point crop usa was the contractual entitle party to those sums that's undisputed crop usa has made demands on diversified outside of the litigation to release those monies it could sue couldn't crap us a bring an action against diversify from money those rightfully owed to it i guess it's not a part of this law right that's correct your honor and that's part of the problem because prop u is the decision by the district court in this action when it has these issues before it is in a position to resolve these issues in a forum with a judge with the best knowledge of the facts of the case in crap violated the terms of their settlement agreement by directing and cooperating with the release of those monies it's the district court who's overseeing the structure of the settlement that has refused to adjudicate the finale the issue of the rightful owner of ship of those proceeds that has caused the problem so for me to be court knows the competing owner isn't in the lawsuit so the district courts not a position to adjudicate that question that's exactly what he says in his  order that wrong that is that is not wrong but that doesn't preclude that if you can adjudicate it why should he be ordering where the money be paid if he knows there are competing claimants whose and who aren't in front of him because your honor first of all the court does have the forty under f r c p isn't going to resolve those competing clients and if that's not wrong i don't understand why he should be expected to maintain a hold over the money in the meantime because there was no change in circumstance all why he put the injunction in place in the first place thinking that or i suppose you are you would have to review the terms of the settlement and the structure that we're putting all of which leaves out the competing claimants and so he's not he doesn't feel his job is in forcing the deal that you and cry usa made in order to get the money away from the sub agents i don't think that is his job i would respectfully disagree with that assessment your honor in fact a review of the settlement components involve a number of third parties insurance companies law firms all of whom were not parties to this lawsuit all of whom are a part of the settlement structure that the court has maintained its jurisdiction and control over this situation with the subagents is really no different and the court could proceed with the injunction and in effect happening or pleader action to have a final adjudication of those issues as a practical matter your honor all of these subagents these mysterious third parties are in fact agents of diversified now that was one of the consequences of this can possibly say that the district court under these circumstances that we've been bandying about has abused its discretion well your honor specifically because the circumstances which give rise to the court's authority to dissolve a preliminary injunction at a minimum should require an opportunity for the parties to address those issues specifically before the court undertakes a dramatic remedy such as dissolving a preliminary injunction that basically when you cut to the chase you have one control with their various defendant companies i'd like to reserve a bit of time here are saying left there are other questions you'd like to address at this time thank you thank you for the argument we'll hear from c diversity good morning your honors please the court clinton record on behalf of diversify crop insurance this appeal addresses a very limited issue and i think that your your honour's have a firm grasp on it our position is covered thoroughly in our brief so unless you have any questions for me we'll send it on on our brief thank you thank you i was not allowed to rebut but be changed dissolved modified require an opportunity for the parties to address those issues specifically with the court before the court to a spontaneous dissolves a preliminary injunction particularly when the objective of that preliminary injunction has not been directly addressed to the court and that's why the cases say that a changed fact or circumstance may give rise to that sort of discretion by the trial court further may happen that would give rise to a change in circumstances that would justify maintaining the preliminary injunction that itself is not a change in fact or circumstances that's a prediction by the court and so by doing that they've leap frogged the process of addressing the issue of whether there had been a change facto circumstance that would warrant that that decision and in my view your honor if the court maintains the preliminary injunction in place this judge vested with two with two different hats he has the continuing authority over the case as a matter of law he also has his continuing settlement authority over the settling parties which gives him additional range of powers that could adjudicate and bring  these issues so with with that i believe that the appropriate approach would be to send it back to the lower court with the with the instruction that in order to dissolve a  before the issue that gave rise to that remedy has been adjudicated that a minimum there be briefing on the issue and to tie it potentially an evidentiary ruling so that that judge has all of the issues particularly the issues relating to the rights of parties that are not before the court specifically subagents well in hand before any decisions are made about the disposition of these assets thank you very much for your time thank you thank counsel for your argument case just argued is submitted