to do that now you're saying they didn't have the right to do that in this case because they didn't get a special no i'm saying a little bit more than that respect your honor what i'm saying is first because the up t w a decision does include a successor liability claim as one that could be sold free and clear that specifically required the debtor in this instance to treat me under bankruptcy rule six thousand four c which is that they have to serve me your honor with a copy of the underlying sell motion it is understood in this record that silly light but your honor so many years earlier at that facility you're on in this is critical that facility was used for safety years by this company called mills in connection with the vela being their business in developing their assets and it's our position court said that the the airlines that t w a was built on by the employees were the very the very beneficiaries of the travel program what happens if you were right and proper notice was not given do we have to void the asset sale in its entirety or do we just have to say that you have the successor liability i certainly wouldn't asses court avoid the sale it's entire the sale was done and i don't think we can scramble that egg but i do think in the case luck plays out that you could your honor you you could find that the sale order issue sure does not preclude my client from pursuing a successful liability claim i think what we would go with back to the bankruptcy court when you then be just one other honor but again just like in in this course t w a decision it was a trial there was an underlying trial in the bankruptcy court that took place as to whether or not whether or not the successful liability claim that was asserted there flowing from the voucher program could be that on my client when the burden was on the debtor the burden was on the debtor was asking for the relief sought which is to sell property free and clear of other claims and interest and other t w a that interest included successful liability claim according to that or under will six thousand for that require then six thousand four c to serve me as if it was a contested matter which means they serve the motion i get the motion to the attention an agent or a general partner or legal department that never took place that's on the spewed it what did happen in your  physically close but that doesn't necessarily mean that they interact on a constant level there was a notice that came in that was checked because it referred to a contract there was no executor a contract between the parties that's not disputed either it's conceded by my opponent so there was a notice decking them to nobody in particular attention and it came in and it talks about you on if you look at the notice it talks about the sale of contracts free and clear doesn't talk about claims of interest it's this if occleve limited to contracts there was interest then what did the order in fact accomplish we wouldn't be here before your honor if my opponent conceded that i did not have an interest in the property sold and therefore was not subject to the order i'm here because the position that my opponent has taken and i was by cohn milt's we were treated differently because they specifically listed environmental claims and successful i believe claims in the schedules of the asset purchase agreement other general creditors were not listed we were unfortunately we never got the asset purchase agreement because well it's a it's a difficult question to answer is i never made the argument but if it's to answer your question bluntly it was a very difficult argument to to to to to prosecute i don't disagree but the burden is on c e came for i think i think the court put its finger on one of the major issues in this case and that is this it's on this came as a general and secure creditor in this case and then the issue becomes what type of notice did they as a general and secure creditor have to be given of this three sixty three cell the then you should becomes whether they could be served under two thousand and two just like any other general unsecured creditor where the decision it's really friend across the aisle calls it the so call sale notice in fact it's called the supplemental notice a possible assumption sale on assignment of certain unexpired leases an executor or a contract and still hearing beyond that i can't even read it but my eyes are consistently that that's the note correct which movie say certainly just got it out of the sale my my lawyer my law firm who worked on this described calling it a sale notice as being underhanded and misleading arena where i practice good character in the first page on the fourth prowar graph it says and i it's hard to read here in connection with the pro proposed asset sale that does debtors intend to assume selling  certain unexpired leases agreements and executor or e contracts free and clear it doesn't even say assets free and clear it says but that's the fourth paragraph here it's it's really i know you've got in here the date of the sale and i know it's in here the date objections must be filed but if this were if you were going to finance a car with this kind of a document be thrown and two minutes when well i don't know i mean i don't i don't know the answer to that but i will say is this if you look at if you look at a bar that notice it might be equally confusing and they are routinely sent to lay people at their places  address and then they're charged with understanding and i would just say the first paragraph says please take notice on october tenth two thousand and three there debtor is file their motion approving cells procedures approving break up fees and schedule me here in turn to consider the corporation for purposes of explaining why they didn't get the actual piece of paper but i would say and i think certainly for a sophisticated creditor such as they they certainly gave them sufficient enough notice to that in fact the sale was taking place w counsel i think it may have been my client mr combs is was actually the purchasers counsel and so when i asked why were they weren't certain he is the purchaser couldn't provide an explanation because the purchaser is not in charge of giving similarly was divested a couple of decades before the sell so they had no interest within the rule six thousand and four c in the property being sold this wasn't a stock transaction we bought certain hard assets we didn't buy that property we did buy that di business now one might argue well though this has been argued that because they had some type of interest with someone hoping to pursue a successor a liability claim and by the way any general unsecured creditors attempted cou you could jack the sale if the sale price doesn't exceed the value of all the things in the property that's under three sixty three f three or you can see adequate protection of your interest let's say there's one property being sold and there's a mortgage she was a mortgage on it it's one hundred thousand dollars property ninety thousand dollar mortgage when the sell occurs that security interest doesn't disappear in the mortgage it gets security interest and the sales proceeds and if you look at the water in this case it revises they all do the liens attach the well i would say one thing factually can be distinguished because there are the property which really gave rise to the claim had been sold the business light had been sold but again i would say in terms of getting the specific notice under six thousand foreseeing only fourteen seven thousand four i would find that that would apply in cases where there is some type of remedy reserved three sixty three for somebody with such an interest and again if they're your secured credit over the meaning of property or you have some type of engram interest but i thought your last line of questioning was very instructive because it went to the line of what was my interest in this property being sold and although we're debating it back and forth today that debate should have taken place in the bankruptcy court and should have the opportunity to go into the bankruptcy court and convince a bankruptcy judge that i did have an interest in that property and that interest could not be terminated by three sixty every other only interests in the property was your only interest in the whole thing is you have a plane that has there's no formal anything but well there was a claim that ultimately resolved in the bankruptcy court but that's not that's not the subject but we have more than that we have more than that because what we have a sale order and an asset purchase agreement and a motion that were all