three people that have bought property of a lot here or there they've made a number of transactions but they were the insiders and then they were actually transferred back and of course to actually transfer back return for our first priority security interest and we i filed a motion for the court to take traditional notice of that and that should be in the record there someplace and that they have filed a plan of reorganization that has not yet been confirmed and there are just we organize no i don't think so because they really haven't done anything the corporation is just they're trying to sell property and they're not they're not being successful you know they've marketed maybe two or three pieces of property and all the others they say they have and they still have the whole reason they filed the new bankruptcy  liens on twenty four pieces of property that the county could sell ok and the reason for that is that undermine ten attacks law they can sell the property for just the value of the taxes against them and on twenty three pieces of property those taxes per property probably total only several hundred dollars for less than a thousand dollars and they could market those for that i think pretty easily in fact the reason the new third crops he was filed was because somebody had come to the county and wanted to obtain those properties under what we call the the only reason they filed the third bankruptcy was to stop somebody from buying the tax certificates from the county on certain pieces of property so you want your leans back we w inspect with the face value like diddly probably somewhere between twenty five and thirty thousand dollars how much do you hope to recover if we give you twenty five to thirty thousand dollars you think that's there if it isn't it's awfully close  i just remind the court that confirmation that to uphold confirmation of a plain and requires all criteria to be satisfied and if any one of those is not satisfied then the perspective the most substantial is the little equivalent of getting stuck in a worthless corporation is not the same as having the first priority clean from the point of view of the other objections some of them are property is said at various times to be almost zero almost zero might be good enough for you to be almost zero is good enough first because because we get all the dollars until we're paid so even if we have a claim of say five hundred dollars against a piece of property if it sells for four hundred dollars at least we get all four hundred dollars of it as it is now we get maybe ten percent the first very properly yes because it because they are taxes and under montana law that's the first priority tax company head of everything and there's authority in my research on that point as far as that you asked me about the points some of them are just in my county and it's so facto you know on their face it's not satisfied for example the special treatment of one of the please the court i'm dale rager and i represent the state condominium association the same got me most association as an association of the unit owners in this condominium that purchased their units prior to the disclosure statement that was approved by the court and we've identified in our briefs a number of problems i think generally speaking those problems relate to improper value they have a number well i think under the the the rules the investor is entitled to rely on the information in the disclosure statement and the disclosure statement supposed to can contain sufficient information for them to make an informed reasonable decision about whether or to vote in favor of the plan and in this particular case because of the valuation of the assets and the over valuation of the assets and the undervaluation of the liabilities we believe as a matter of law that they actually a know i think that the whole plan hinges upon value and determination that there is value here for unsecured creditors and because the plan depends upon value i think that's a significant issue that needed to be new bankruptcy has new creditors it complicates and it has has its own creditors that are separate and distinct from the creditors of the old bankruptcy and remember the creditors of the old bankruptcy are the people in control of the secured creditors that secured creditors an unsecured creditors of the old bankruptcy are who owned this property they're the ones who elect the board of directors neron complete control of the property so the new bankruptcy would have to allocate out or marshal out assets to pay the claims of the new bankruptcy and then what's left i honor the hearing record before the bankruptcy court was an early one sided because we were the only ones to put on any evidence whatsoever on the conclusion is still almost nothing it was nothing that's well it was hardly any value on an need much but i don't know if hardly any value is the same as five hundred dollars and the problem your honor is that the the holding cost of owning this property is negative you've got you've got to pay money out to own something that you can sell that was the evidence before the bankruptcy court and i think the bankruptcy courts fully accepted that evidence and i think that the situation is that they may have got stock in a worthless corporation but their collateral was also worthless it have no value there's nobody to buy  that was the evidence before the bankruptcy court they could apply that put on their own evidence to say that the that the property is worth whatever number they want to vomit testimony for but they didn't bother all of the testimony came from a liquidating trust liquidating trust testimony was that you can't sell this property and owning it is more burdensome then not owning it because you have to insure pay taxes on it maintain and do all sorts of things and you don't have a market for it we have an old air base that's literally in the middle of nowhere and there's very little demand for that housing on last as the plant proponent wanted to do is to develop economic development using the particular properties but there's like i said three hundred fifty parcels of property here and i don't think that those are at all typical of what the situation is you put your finger on a problem is so why had it been in the disclosure statement would it have been any different the judge knew about the that it wasn't in the disclosures they went because the county  written record a letter saying these are the postage and property taxes and in the exercise of the judge's discretion he determined that it was not critical that that information be included in a disclosure thing would submit that the bankruptcy court fully appreciated the huge problem that everybody faced with with this property in terms of trying to somehow try to get the monies of the creditors to get paid and i think the court after listening to the testimony put on by the liquidating frost or green that the trust plan paid the creditors an equivalent amount to what their claim was worth and in the  realized and understood and appreciated all of the practical problems that this whole project faces in terms of its location  plan well i'm not sure that i would quite agree with that although that would be a good conclusion of draw from the fact that this and that same redevelopment corporations in bankruptcy but what has happened is the treatment of kelly and engineering from the bank presented a special circumstance based on the state law that you discussed with mr makki that precludes a bank from holding stock for a certain period of time so  give the stock to the bank but we couldn't force the bank to hole that stock while we went to liquidation and sold the property and i think again i think your honor you put your finger on it when you said so what in hindsight if the liquidating trust didn't have the benefit of going out hiring auditors for financial statements or or to do a number of the things that the economy the so situation wanted us to do we had to play the cards that were dealt to us we had to use the tools that the lien situation and owns property so that we can engage in an owner financed sales and so forth we're simply not going to be able to generate anywhere close to the money that's necessary to pay the points i think the liquidating trust proposed the most practical plan that it could come up with in order to get everybody paid i think that the plan i think the bankruptcy court agreed that the plan has well i believe that the st marie development corporation was progressing toward accomplishing what the plan intended and a year end do it all of a sudden they were faced with the problem property in order to avoid in order to pay the property taxes as they called it and as a practical matter the only way to sell enough property to do that is to entice either e the attorneys for it's not mr patten in that case he's also a creditor now the attorney that his called me and said that he's going to ask that it be postponed ending the outcome of your decision it well i don't i don't think it's that complicated the s happened in the chu case from this circuit the court can just order the liens put back in place and we know what they are because they were all included in there and we' marketing expense and and maintenance expense i guess and those sorts of things there would be expensive but we don't have any expense because we're just going to foreclose even and sell the property we didn't put any