and subsidiary and under those circumstances the supreme court requires an additional level of more regular rigorous scrutiny to ensure that the settlement is fair now what does that mean here that there would need to be some kind of independent disinterested review such as the sort of review that the creditors committee initially requested to make here in fact the creditors committee independent review and informed and independent review resulting in an informed and independent judgment by the bankruptcy court that didn't happen here either the court blows glossed over a number of important legal theories important senses that the debtor may have had to these claims and in addition affirmative counterclaim the defender may have been able to bring against cities some of the creditors did like the deal right absolutely on not as such but as part of a part of an overall kind of deal that was being made so that some of the creditors i guess a lot of the creditors really thought it was ok right with i believe the terms of it were that it would go forward provided that the settlement was within a certain range and it did fall in that range why don't you tell me how because you were an answer to creditor cracked correct why don't you tell circular but but they're on it because if you define fair it's getting all your money generally in this type of situation no one's going to get all their money right that's absolutely true and you know we let it be and bankruptcy court  feel if you're objecting to length there's some there's some reason you think you would be better off if the court had an apprentice and why tell me what that is we believe that it based on what we've seen here and we believe that it may not have been fair it was most likely not sure this is fair but we don't expect to gain anything and we don't know what we would gain we might actually lose the bankruptcy judge thought you know if you guys manage to throw a monkey wrench into the deal what might happen it and you say no fair and i think it's a fairly it's a fair question to say when you say no fair what any fair about it what you're getting those claims were going to take up that portion of the amount that was available that program the distribution that would be available to and secured creditors the settlement the currency of the settlement in this case was in terms of and we think it probably should have been substantially less than that that increases the amount that would have been available for other unsecured creditors such as are this tax so even now secured creditors getting w for million last i mean you're saying they should have gotten six million last and that would leave two million more that might give you a chance of getting some money i mean because obviously you're on the bottom of the faith chain as an unsecured creditor any way that you look at it so that that's your you're thinking that you're even there's going to be like i'm a pot of gold and that if you are maybe you know after after years of litigation after years of litigation with the doings of the no holders who live for cause all kinds of horrible things will have happened and there won't be anything left at the end and here or thirteen point five to simon for the note holders i think what was missing here was a real link between this parade of horribles that was going to happen if this sentiment was not approved and and the need to prove a settlement so quickly and in fact it appears that circumstances have not really borne out all of these fears of the debtor had about getting this attempt is was the settlement fair absolutely from the front of him from the front end of the run and discretion when he said i feel all these problems but at that point out of the problems were hypothetical and they were very they were stated a fairly general way that you're going to have a gigantic interest a battle that are going to bog down both in the states well that is not materialized that that had this settlement  approved i'm not sure we would be in that much difference is not how the material i mean though the point was a they're not having a big chunk of litigation so of course it hasn't materialized just if you're successful maybe a will but but of course and of course the future is always pursued a more thorough and independent evaluation of these claims and that side of the coin was really only addressed in the most general terms  again that is addressed really in the most general terms that any preference case is going to be difficult to prove that's what sample i believe the court stated simply equitable subordination is disfavored remedy but without really linking those two sides what's the upside versus what's the downside we know that the court believed in the debtors started that this would have been a long drawn out experienced in person bankruptcy judge in fact if i recall the transcript oz's cancel the number of times that we know are you aware of this particular problem or the case is a deal with this particular would be a long drawn out and difficult litigation process that's true of a lot of different kinds of claims but again you have to look at the flip side you have to look at what the probable outcome might have then and what the benefits whether to use discretion occurred and that test in turn requires a showing i think a judge novel clearly exercised bad judgment in approving this what about the sufficiency of the findings well judge just restarted his consideration of the four factors and following you know well established principles this court held that so long as the record fairly supports the court's conclusions and it's clear that the four factors were record to establish that it was all there in front of him and that there was no abuse of discretion should also point out that the record here was exceedingly lengthy we filed a detailed some world had the ability to kill one another he talked about rearranging the deck on the titanic he didn't just make that stuff up he clearly read and understood the evidence in the piece of tape as to what was it that wrists want one was that this was supposed to be really a piece of a puzzle and the overall puzzle with a was in the green and a different a different agreement with others i'll ask the same question as a holding company has that holders occurred in the middle of december and the waiver by the no holders that participated in that settlement of their right to pursue katie's occurred as a result katie's effectuated is restructuring and its recapitalization and  next month or early next year so the the agreement that was in front of the judge has been implemented and it is worked by stearns and we think it was appropriate on on the circumstances present it in a raft respect the bigger picture it is our efforts to get out of bankruptcy have f fault and that's where we are part of what the judge was told was that i believe some of the creditors the trade creditors were not objecting or withdrawn objections because part of the deal was somewhere in the background they were going to get taken care of to some extent and they would continue to advance credit you know what happens after mother would fall in place or is that gone well that is subject to will be in place when the plan is confirmed that aspect of the settlement will be implemented what consul the pain that autism is likely to get out of that is that they're not going to be part of the trade creditors because i guess they're not a trade creditor and such for some kind of a lending institution i think i don't you know i think company's assets supported by them they would support a provision under which trade vendors that agreed to furnish credit to sun world or its successor following the emergence f trade places with and go into that business but they've chosen not to your honor with respect to the statements about this being an insert or settlement as indicated well the case law is not in this circuit but there are there are cases preferences and more fundamentally the record the evidence show that in the year proceeding some worlds bankruptcy cady's advanced more than three million dollars into the same world that it took out and the preference  on world state would want to try to pierce the corporate veil to get to katie's because in my experience that's a two way street it would have been a very smart thing to do sort of really weren't any other positive action that we thought a probability that a substantial portion of them would be resolved and we decided in cooperation with whole lot of creditors to try to resolve them and we did so we believe in terms that were fair and thank you thank you sir what would have been the outcome and wasn't this really better for everyone at the end of the day well if that's true any time you have a settlement between an insider and a parent do we just throw that one rigorous scrutiny out the window and assume that a parade of reviewing this time and on behalf of the debtor first of all there was no testimony by these individuals in the record that the bankruptcy court never had an opportunity to address their credibility westchester credibility of these individuals and parent conflicts of interest that prevented them from performing the kind of disinterested review that was required from rigorously scrutinizing the settlement in the way that it truly does interested party would have done and we s