case a supreme court noted that related to jurisdiction cannot be limitless the issue before this court is whether related to subject matter jurisdiction should extend to state law collection actions brought against a non debtor  owes money to an entity is in bankruptcy or said another way do such proceedings have a conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate because a point if it prevails might repay the bankrupt entity and might use and that is for two reasons first the connection between the estate and the litigation is to remove and to speculative given that there is an intervening decision and there intervening actions by the plaintiff standing between the recover connection between the lawsuit itself and the bankruptcy of state but your declaration to say may be available says will be available you said the standard previously was might be you know might pay down some debt of the of the diner but it's more than in the kelsey declaration is a specific enough to say it will be available and go through the calculation of how much money will be left over after all the other debts are exhausted yes your honor and that is judge rake off the district what's the same analysis that he used was to ultimately conclude the funds will be available and might be paid to the debtor our view is that the factual predicate the factual analysis is relevant we believe that there should be a rule that they can see the effect on the bankruptcy state never exists where the debtor of a debtor claims that proceeds will be used to repay the bank or to state we think that you raised this issue or even raised this issue in your in your pleadings the district court that we think are very relevant to this point in the allstate case and in the ceiling case one by judge buchwald one by judge swain the fact that it was the following the defendant had removed alleging that  the defendant had an indemnity claim against a bankrupt entity in both those situations defendant had not yet filed a claim the bankruptcy case and actually was precluded time wise from doing so and so the argument by the defendant was that there was a nexus to the bankruptcy case because it could seek leave of court to file late filed point in both those cases the judges are just tricked level said that is one too many levels removed that the nexus between the litigation and the bankruptcy estate was not connected sufficiently because of that intervening stat that intervening uncertainty of whether there would be leave to file late filed claim and we think that is very similar to the case here and the similar to any situation where a debtor of a debtor claims that they might use proceeds in order to repay the debt or there's an indirect subsidy or relationship is your argument here is it's not a direct subsidiary of the debtor because once removed it is that what you're it in a company obligation to a debtor no different your honor then if i hospital through bankruptcy and let's say there were thousands of patients that bode outstanding bills to the hospital all those patients would be and if any of those patients brought state law collection actions against a landlord or security posit somebody that didn't clean their their they're walkway and they slipped and fell all those actions seeking to collect money under judge rake off holding would fall under related to jurisdiction because all those lawsuits would be seeking to collect proceeds that could theoretically be used to repay the bill to the hospital debtor we think that does not provide a jurisdictional basis to decide this an adversary proceeding to look at the facts see look through the kelsey declaration to see if there was a factual basis for more direct relationship and that that is correct and  think we're where george burns has could actually think is very relevant he begins by saying that that a plaintiff may pay other debts may keep the money and therefore these links are true remote and if that were not the bankruptcy courts related to jurisdiction over third party disputes would be virtually limitless however judge bernstein went on to make a factual finding that he believed that it was more likely in the circumstance that the trustee would use his control over mag to cause the payment to be made to the debtor from our perspective no factual analysis should have been made we think that where the case law should stop is to say that there should there would never be a conceive effect in a bankruptcy  state just based on the fact that the plaintiff is money to a debtor that that will never be sufficient under any set of facts and this is why it's important under engaging in a factual analysis invites the opportunity for litigants to manufacture jurisdiction if they so choose a plaintiff that wants to be in federal court will naturally say i will use the proceeds to pay the debt or likewise a plaintiff that wants to get remanded back to the state court will say i will never use the proceeds to repay the debt or engaging in a factual analysis in this matter really invites impose a huge burden of federal courts who needs to scrutinize and speculate about people's intentions in cases brought in front of them this twenty eight and a half million dollar judgment your honour's i think it's fair to say that you seem to understand fully the issue that is here and that is that this is not a speculative stretch to find your stiction it was an analysis done by judge bernstein based on the record before him which was the kelsey affidavit and it is just strongly correctly points out he analyze that and he came to the conclusion that there would be money available for the ample of state there is no question it succeeded a lawsuit that is absolutely correct and the lawsuit has succeeded i mean we do have a twenty eight and a half million dollars judgment against them this is not a speculative litigation and the cases that counsel refers  to the allstate case those cases the nexus was very far removed there were issues regarding whether or not there's an indemnity claim and there's an issue regarding whether or not the money would ever come proceeds of it collects it pay its legitimate tax claims of about eight and a half million dollars its third party claims and they'll still be in excess of ten million dollars a vailable for the distribution and the other am pelle subsidiaries the issue of and what counsel tries to make a point of is that is they suggest that because judge bernstein said well the trust met could always deter cause all the money to go into amp help but that's irrelevant the point is that there's money there for him help if the amp if the mag money is distributed pro rata to the fact of the matter here is that the trustee of amp l happens to be the person who's in charge of magen running that litigation and certainly is going to want that money to flow into amp l this is not a created situation this is a fact if amp help if magaw those eight and a half million dollars of tax claims and two million dollars a third party claims there's going to be excess money here for the claims on the capital notes of which  directly the debtor hold sixty want to have has a capital of sixty one point nine million dollars so even if you just spread it out among all of the subsidiaries there's still going to be a but at least a one six million dollar they say is it do we have subject manager's dictionary do we not is this nexus real is it too speculative i mean if you read the analysis and you know you have you read judge bernstein's decision this is not a speculative nexus and as judge great cough pointed out in his judgment in his opinion he said this is not it's beyond conceivable effect there's no room there's there's a there's almost a certainty that there will be a distribution to the m l states so the arguments that there's no subject matter jurisdiction here simply don't hold is where we are this is the law and and  yeah and your honor you correctly point out that that the appellant sought the jurisdiction of the time when it was convenient because they wanted to delay what was in the state court which was a motion for summary judgment a little complaint we got to the federal court because we agreed there was a nexus and there was a subject manager's direction and of course you can't confer it but i mean the judgment that is certainly thought it was there they now say well because it's insolvent there's no nexus because the equity isn't worth anything but it's not the equity it's the claim it's the claim is where we have the right here am pelt is owed money for man this money if it gets into the mega stake into man will be used to pay distributions in the ample estate this is beyond just speculation it's beyond it is it's it's a very conceivable and again as  almost certainty that this will have an impact on the state and affect the administration really don't have anything else to say your honour's if you have any questions on here  adopt invites or actually necessitates an analysis by a federal court every time that this type of case comes before it in order to guess essentially what it is that the plaintiff will or will not do with proceeds should they be recovered we believe that if you look at what judge bernstein did here asking us to basically overrule the sense of the conceivable basis standard i don't believe so your honor and what we're asking for is a clarification innocence that the conceivable effect needs to be more closely related in these situations and  across the board in all these situations and needs to be more connected than death you can inquire into the facts or it just has to be a structural relationship is that the fact that the plaintiff owes money to a debtor will never be sufficient to satisfy the conceivable effect because it is too removed it is too remote between there's too much of a remote connection between the bankruptcy state and the litigation itself lank commits to  if it recovers it commits itself to paying x percent which it would do to the bankruptcy court which could then you know deal with that commitment out of the situation i mean we take commitments to my concern with would be the just as easily the plaintiffs could stand up if you wanted to eliminate federal jurisdiction and say under no circumstance are we going to pay this debt or and we're basically placing the analysis on jurisdiction and what the requirement on a federal court to in every single of these situations take testimony get discovery try to assess the credibility of the statement is being made by the plaintiff about the intentions in order to use proceeds introduces a whole nother process in these later geisha ins for which there really is no need from our perspective mark respective the the right application of the consumer of that standard is to say that the nexus has to be close the traditional situation where effect has been found is where the defendant has an indemnity right against the debtor and dollar for dollar every dollar that judgment will yield a claim against the bankruptcy estate that is a direct connection there's no intervening action of complaint you have no defenses while you're out i mean from from our perspective that is where i think this would end up assuming that they were to refile the lawsuit in state court it's r we don't want to keep you much past you can't i just want to make sure i understand your response to one of judge parker's questions he suggested that well we don't know how the plaintiffs flew pay the money on a recovery i would think that would support rather than undermine the bankruptcy court being involved in the case because with the bank to state having a claim to perhaps sixty percent if other creditors would try to jump ahead the third parties involved one of the things i thought you said to judge parker was we don't know the successful plaintiff is going to pay its creditors who wants that plaintiff has represented to the bankruptcy court that it will pay the bank for up to stay in the bank for up to see the bankruptcy judge will take care of the bankrupt estate in a way that perhaps another wouldn't and so on i'm suggesting to you i think your answer support