point six million dollars that's correct ok but that no more than that any threat could be taken now i suppose that if the fees did not amount to one so is that what we are hearing today is the suspicion that there is money left over or that you're saying the fees were too high and money should be left over oh no that's not what we're saying what are you saying here's what we're saying we're orders were hindered right after oral argument in the nets for one case but before them and they came down and so what we're saying is that the that the next year one opinion ordered the district court to reconsider the fees that were awarded it wide of an unauthorized receivership because they had been awarded in light of the authorized receivers and what we're saying is that when we filed the notice of appeal those orders were vested in the some court and it was impossible for the district court to reconsider the orders that are on if you're correct what what follows from that but policy that is this court and can we manage these orders to the district court to be reconsidered in light of the non authorized the secrecy and that's all we're asking the court to do that right now but now how many orders were entered when the judge district court had jurisdiction as opposed to the orders that it issued when you say it did not have any circumstances represented by anybody but the receiver so they that they were not permitted to come to court when the judge held a hearing to reconsider the fees in light of the mandate and they were not h i understand your argument is contrary but i want to get past that and tell her now where were we what were our is is that the district court has we consider purportedly reconsider all the fees they have any argument against those awards other than the that the court lacked jurisdiction to do so yes and what is that that is quantic no point did not have the opportunity to appear  want you to tell me what looks to me like is a lot of proliferation and gamesmanship that's been going on and for the gaijin and i caution you that that will not obtained in this court i've read some of the transcript  of each one of the johnson factors and therefore we believe that that they could be reconsidered but we're all we are going today about these these five or six years ok thank you very managers diction you don't look to recover your fees as against the corpus of receivership the large percentage of which was the limited liability companies asked you must look elsewhere where do you look that be a violation of the mandate in that sphere one and my answer is no why because there is no subject matter jurisdiction point in that's the one as the i will see the remainder of it is a discussion of improper swear subject they were not named in the bankruptcy proceedings they were not named in this to parents now continuing involuntary bankruptcy proceedings we were dragged into being innocent and if the district court judge had followed them in  tell this honorable court that there's been a panel that preceded this and all that made a mistake or we tell each other that all would top bottom line issue order if the court ruled that there was there was no subject matter jurisdiction in the district court to instituted receivership over mr behrens assets and over the assets of ano we've been respectful all the way down the road with with this what we love tried to not of the parties and tried to be disrespectful to the district judge or to by many i'm not saying doesn't necessarily mean disrespect seems to be a pinch of that in there as well but i mean it does have to do act in an orderly kind of of wayne and not try to sabotage everything every time somebody well the other side moves i mean nobody gets wrong in this case previous panel was wrong we can do nothing about that and now you're arguing that the previous panel is wrong because a pox and i don't care none of what i say is you need to go back and clear whether the may two thousand and thirteen order is one that is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment nevertheless the receiver's position is that it would prefer a ruling from this court a ruling from this court today on this these matters that are before us a subject of another appeal at this moment i believe that is correct your honor working that pretty much resolved well we believe that this court could take great strides in putting an end to the litigation but i don't know i guess you could i mean somebody from st louis but we have to have jurisdiction you can't just you know if we don't have all clearly familiar with the pattern of this case and the facts that existed prior to next for one and as and that have led to this appeal and that have led to the final appeal that is ultimately pending there's been a pattern in practice of the stations litigation and multiplication of proceedings what we would ask you to do is to follow the law of the case dr and the mandate rule and the rule of orderliness the prior panel in that sphere one has already determined many of these issues unfortunately it may take mr barrett in the l l c is hearing that same determination several times from this court and they continue to request determinations from if this court did determines that it has jurisdiction in enters an order affirming judge ferguson's implementation of the mandate and finding that he did not abuse his discretion in reconsidering the prior and pending fee applications without the sale of additional assets and in unwinding the receivership as was ordered to be done by demanding an order an order of that nature could send a strong and yet took money from the received ship to pay the fees of the receivers these incurred by lawyers and others and in medicine  receivership really have to do with whether the receivership was an appropriate remedy given the the conduct at issue that the district court was trying to curb because  contradiction with those assets were in fact before the district court and were included in part of the receivership that the l l c use acquiesced to being included in the in the receivershi and were always included in this court next year one saw that the receivership nonetheless didn't compassed those assets as an equitable solution and determines that the receivership expenses should be charged against the no question that mr barrett was subject to the receivership and the jurisdiction of the forms will rely on all of the circumstances that the the panel was looking at they determined that that  a prior panel of this court found was that an equitable solution to an improper receivership would be to fly down the receiver ship and charge the receiver receiver season expenses and against  out of the cash that was on hand which they are and represented to the court was approximately one point six million dollars which they now claim was actually more and that was a that was not an accurate account of what was in the in the bond as cash and so the court bad and i just want to make a a few brief points first of all we disagree that there is any inconsistency in the nets fear opinion but to the extent that the nets for one  as such there really is no clear cut rule as to how you deal with issues relating to receiver ships and so you know baron and no point in quantico argue that with respect to the issue of cost for an improper receivership there's a strict rule and that just isn't the case and they cite various case laws of early twentieth century cases that the mets meaning one panel did consider and found that the only rule is do equity there is no strict rule regardless of whether the court had jurisdiction or not over the property in the receivership the ultimate goal is to do equity under the particular circumstances of each case and when you look at the cases that the opponents are citing such as mine bonding and landing trust knox and chemical products and speak meant searching for a strict rule there is no strict rule there  no rule requiring discordant which is actually what they're seeking they want all professionals despite the work in the good work that the district court found that they did on behalf of the receivership to disgorge all fees and that is not required by any president of this corridor of any supreme court case that they've cited so i believe you know that the next year one panel fashioned a remedy that was appropriate to the circumstances an equitable rmy that was committed permitted by all the case law and that remedy was elysees additionally there is no requirement that there be an alter ego finding for including the l l c his assets in the receivership and first of all we believe that there was such a finding but there is that's not a requirement for  the l l c assets were under the control of barry and that is quite clear from the record baron either owned or controlled he was the sole beneficiary of the trust that owned the elsie's and in fact in the bankruptcy case let me i'm sure you like to find your sticks in this court but i like your comment on that particular suggested you have a case law that addresses that particular formulation no i don't hear the argument about on and the statute doesn't so that the wind up would continue to wind up albion over that it was an improperly ordered receivership should not affect the and the want a provision i wouldn't think so but i don't know what the law is on that i don't have any helpful to me was acquiesced to being in the receivership that the judge judge ferguson made a ruling at the hearing that the elysees had always been included the receivership and they ordered the elysees attorney to agree to the language of the order they appealed the order that put them into receivership so they challenge that from the very beginning and my reading of the nets for one opinion as is that the prior panel the pursuant to wind down as are the same shit because these more under twelve ninety two a is you just read that these were these were orders for the orders or appeal in the one nineteen orders in furtherance of the yes and the nestor want to pin you just said that equity controls and they didn't say what the standard was i understand that but that's not my that's what i'm trying to get to the question of jurisdiction i understand but yes these these these orders that are on appeal on the one thousand nine hundred case were repeal repealed when the court when the district court had jurisdiction he made these rulings they were appealed and then when they because they were vested in this court our position is that these these orders couldn't be reconsider jurors the difficult of jurisdictional in the matter of tourney speech which is where we started our discussion that's exactly correct but we're only challenging the these attorneys fees which are about a million dollars the were not our appeal doesn't have anything to do with the four five million that was awarded already however i act would like to to mention one thing that this court brief those cases which deal with an otherwise improper receivership which applies to mr baird are subject to the equitable principles that are laid out in those cases and if you look at the decision in that sphere one the decision is clearly that the district court ordered the receiver and those people seeking all fees to segregate those fees based upon the est to deter to make a discussion to explain how each state benefited and to identify funds which each estate would have spent had there not been a receivership because that's the only way that you can dispute and distribute these you're dealing with two people of which two different parts of the mandate apply and the trouble is that the understand that when we entered into this matter i think we the elysees had approximately one hundred fifty thousand the main names which were profitable to paid more than the amount of registration fees at this point in time when the receivership was finally t of those disputes get resolved in the way that i explained this is going to take some time for the district court to unwind this and it's fair that enough time be taken to unwind it but this is the only thing that needs to be done the underlying of this court i would answer two fold one is i believe with appellant that instruction from this court guidance from this court would be extremely helpful in the district court level and the faster that that guidance can be issued the better efficient things will run secondly under one nine hundred twelve ninety two b it's not just orders in connection with the wind down of the receivership it's distributions of property taxes property i could sue person for converting my cash it's property it's in the plain meaning of the statute therefore this action is repeal what what if we if we just simply affirm no opinion nothing we affirm or where would you be