trustee is asking point that i have not filed a proof of claim at the time of the trial i think i made the point during the hearing that because a two year statute of limitation to suit creditors and insiders had now grown a lot for the possibility that he would be sued under and if you knock out that claim there's there's very little that there's very little doubt about point two million slim money to me in the grand scheme in this case it's very little debt compared to the rest are going to be so what if the law firm runs that's chapter eleven pre packed pre packed is bankruptcy lingo for the parties the constituencies having pre bankruptcy gotten together and put together the outline the deal points in chapter eleven was in the pre packed the insurance companies who were not creditors and can go only in case we're going to have to pay the debts so there obviously some differences but i think it's roughly analogous to mr furlow situation per which portion of three twenty seven a controls and then how to interpret it and so my side says well the first point is at trial trustees counsel conceded to the bankruptcy court stipulated that ok the trustees not going for pursuit of subsection e three twenty seven that matters because  because what that meant was trustees counsel is going for under three twenty seven and three twenty seven and has to qualifying provisions one is if they cannot represent the law from cannot represent an adverse interest well in this case end of the year you can't get a more adverse interest in the creditor who holds more than ninety five percent of the debt against the bankruptcy state and the trustee has a statutory duty under the statu trustee and mr parlow regarding whether or not three twenty seven c represents an exception three twenty seven aides sensible two step test let me first address the standing issue as the court points out mr furlow was not a creditor at the time but this was this issue this proceeding happened before the bankruptcy court mr furloughed and not purchase this claim until after the court's decision on the trustees motion to retain special counsel so obviously the issue was never raised for the bankruptcy court it was also never raised before the district court and the briefs before this court is the first time it's ever been raises as an issue a claim gives him standing is essentially a question of fact this is an issue that must go back to the bankruptcy court for a factual determination of whether mr furlow by purchasing this claim has standing to object to this motion that was never done by mr further we want to have the opportunity before the bankruptcy court to contest that there is case law that i have cited in the in my brief that says that under certain circumstances the purchase of a claim for an improper purpose will not give a party standing and my point is that point i thought you had already made which is if he wasn't a creditor at the time then it's over with as a matter of law isn't it i don't know what facts there would be still to charmin both sides agree that he was not a creditor at that time because he had purchased purchased the enter so is what needs to go back that absolutely correct no it does not need to go back as it stands now what i'm saying is that if mr furlow wants to wants to argue that he that would be right for consideration whether the bankruptcy court would take that up because it's essentially an issue that's already been decided but in any event that has never been done but i agree as it stands right now mr furlow is not a creditor and he does not have stand now also want to point out that we are dealing with a fairly restrictive standing issue because three twenty seven see it limits the parties that may object in this particular circumstance to the united states trustee and to a creditor that is more restrictive than the typical bankruptcy standing rules which is generally said that a party has to have some cuny or interest in the outcome of the bankruptcy case so we would argue that mr low doesn't have a peculiar interest in the outcome the bankruptcy case but even but certainly he doesn't meet the more restrictive requirements of three twenty seven c that says it has to be in the united states trustee or a or a credit actually has some sort of a conflict of interest you know there there is some place language that miscount will as cited in her brief which essentially that you don't get to three twenty seven c without going through three twenty seven and the three twenty seven see does not change the requirements of three twenty seven if you still have to meet the requirements three twenty seven a four even get the to see i would argue that that language is was just not very carefully drawn and some of the comes some circles three twenty seven they explicitly says in the very first clause except as otherwise provided in this section which means that what comes after three twenty seven eight is going to modify the twenty seventh the terms of three twenty seven and so in three twenty seven seed says that if there is an objection to this special coun retention the court shall disapprove such simple employment if there is an actual conflict of interest that is a modification of the dissenters to the requirement of three twenty seven with in my mind the disinterested requirement of  require an actual conflict of interest a party could be disqualified for a potential conflict of interest in see if this special counsel represents a creditor factually in this case the special counsel there is really no not even a potential for conflict of interest at this point  pursuing the estates claims the only way that there could be a conflict of interest between these parties is if they are both successful and are going after the same defendants to collect a judgment that cannot happen in this case because nobody has agreed to contribute any recovery in their medication to the bankruptcy estate so there is no dual loyalty on behalf of special counsel because everything that they're going to collect is going into the banking system none of it is going to go directly and allows a creditors lawyer specifically to represent the estate so the fact that a creditor has a claim in the estate which otherwise might be an adverse interest is essentially ignored under three twenty seven see the trustee has not objected to an obvious claim because it's not right bankruptcy trustees don't object to claims that the statute says that a trustee must object to claims if a purpose would be served if there is no purpose to be served there no objection is required as it stands right now this bankruptcy estate does not have sufficient funds to pay general insecure claims there's no purpose in objecting to any of these claims right now that's not to say that in the future if we get a bunch of money in there might not be a reason to do that but as it stands right now it's just not an issue second i also want to point out that mr furlow has objected and and that is another good reason for why the trustee not to protect the claim because if if another party in interest is actually doing it then there's it doesn't serve a purpose for the trustee to do it as well the state disciplinary all i would say about that is to the extent that the state disciplinary rules are an element of state law i would argue that the bankruptcy code and it's federal law would preclude that under the supremacy of federal law so in my mind the bankruptcy code can change the state law relating to conflicts of interest which i think they have done here in this particular narrowing to an instance of the last thing i want to mention is that the trustees evidence shows that the special counsel was disinterested for purposes of the motion and in any manner whatsoever contemplate waiving any conflict in fact the only thing you know mention is that if we discover a conflict then we'll talk  counsel i disagree the trustees counsel about whether or not trustees counsel here today about whether or not no purpose would be served i think that if if the purity who holds ninety five percent of the claim  interview was suing for breach of warranty filed bankruptcy that's when they decided they needed to which of constructive and intentional fraudulent transfers under eleven a c five a to c and this is not in the brief either to see allows creditors who wants they've been sued to get a judgment against him and up pay then they get is mr wentworth directed this court to the except clause at the beginning of three twenty seven and eight we just read it differently i read that to mean to be a reference to the i disagree with that and in fine a point i'll make is you know it was hard for judge is to figure out exactly what potential conflicts were there because the law suit had been f