e a key point made by folks on the other side of the world import folks have pushed it aside they view that this is going to this puts the parties at risk and that's something the bankruptcy court was clearly concerned about and that this report was concerned about and in your brief on page twenty eight you basically say well that's not this case don't worry about it you say it's important recognizes hypothetical harm does not exist in this case the good the for be afraid of these goods by operation of lot but implication we could extend the we on these goods to reach price that associated with prior shipments right we be worried about third parties how do you answer that point well i think you points on a run is we're actually asserting a weight on goods we actually have in our possession this is not we're not seem to go out here to go back out to the goods that have gone into it with the marketplace have the actual goods in our possession worth more than the amount were ok so the limiting principle they answer to my question is we have a limiting principle on the limiting principle is our lead couldn't go beyond goods actually in our possession is that what i'm hearing you say i'm saying are you don't you can rule in our favor without going beyond that here i think john to play language of the supreme court's holding in the various cases we've cited are that when an owner decides it voluntary a sophisticated entity science three separate contracts saying that a lien survived delivery and secondly that your lien includes the value of cargo in your possession not only for the ship but but for prior transportation provided when they've agreed to that no sophisticated party i think the precedent is clear those are in for civil yeah so what are you really really want to argue for the position that if this it gone into world imports possession and they'd sold it to third parties that you're leaving follows the goods and you could go back and get it from  what is a traditional marriage timely and i would submit on a way such a surprise to me that you're pressing that point that way because i would have thought the simple answer from your position would be not just hey you don't have to go there but were never suggesting that you can have a secret lien it can reach out to third parties with no notice whatsoever and we could take stuff back because there's plenty of language in supreme court cases that talk about strictly construing maritime liens precisely because the that far and secondly your honor this is an issue where the the only the owner of the goods was the debtors they are they are the ones who entered into this party no one claimed ownership and this good so no one else is being prejudiced the as management in case there the court said or sees me in the first circuit excuse me your honor i was a separate opinion the first circuit recognized the because it's in a taf which this is it has the force of law would severely undermine the u c c regime around united states i don't want your honor again i don't believe it would because it's well established that maritime such as these are this is not an maritime commerce if this is if this is so common can you help us understand why this is coming up i mean i couldn't find any case like this you know i would submit that there are at for cargo in its possession for freight payable quote not only for the shipment in issue but for payments to you under any other contract between the parties that were held that that was in force of what your honor it's consistent with ninth circuit authority and but you have a fee in the context of bankruptcy law right i'm sorry a bankruptcy law there we have this intersection of bankruptcy law and maritime law that's what's was a little surprising to me because it seemed likely that this was not the language was not an invention of your clients this was probably language that's needed in other  good afternoon your honour's my name is david braverman is my privilege to represent the debtors and possession the world import entities may please the court may i proceed with my heart he's like i think that oh you see is conflating concepts not of did not under reasonable prospect under the plethora of case law dating back two hundred years however there's one thing out of all these cases starting with the bird of paradise that is entirely clear maritime weed is a secretly maritime leaving is not known to the world and it is limited by definition to the cargo in possession it is a possessor legally yes or well and they say to us and we had possession of the car we had possession of the cargo that's an issue  here and the fact that leans associated with our shipments should shouldn't mean that we can't contract for those earlier leads to attach to this cargo and in fact you wouldn't scenary invoice right i do not dispute that that language exists however that conflates the issue because those issues that language relates to general weeks they do not relate to american lives they can't and the reason they can't is because here's an example bird of paradise is telling you things can happen outside that traditional thing because the parties agree to it and that will be enforced for us american family what's wrong with their assertion about that get away the back b paradise cases much more limited the bird of paradise case says that it is a strictly strict edger a sleeve that's created by operation of law it may be extended and the only circumstance well it may be modified by limited get and it may be extended and one circumstance and that circumstance is where there is constructive possession were weird you get that piece of it where did you get that and the one circumstance like which i get that since that case was decided there's not a single maritime lean case that deals with anything other than the extension based upon a conditional delivery the reason is is because it's a possessor really and it's a possessor only for the cargo in possession it doesn't really mean that if you have possession of a cargo today you can use that card to offset charges or cargo that has previously been released because even if the party has said doesn't because because what you say needs nothing in those documents no sir it means nothing in the context of a matter of time money that is language relating to a generally that is language that is not a secret and that's supposed to article nine lean in all the goods that are at issue in this case the language that your honor asked me about is found at page five fifty five which says that the parties may have read it the goods when the ship arrives at the port of tested destination shall be deposited in the warehouse of the constant he or owner and that the transfer shall not be regarded as the way verb ilene and where they so agreed the settle rule in this court is that the law will uphold the agreement supportively that's an issue of conditional delivery and that's an issue where they say when you put it in a warehouse for example of bonded warehouse stateside and they they look at that that cargo what they had done is conditionally released possession so that the condition is really not releasing possession and again your honor judge ordered that is for work again economies of of the dealt only with the liberty to warehouse and i just want to get this and then i'll go back and answer your questions the reason why it's very important to have that warehouse language is because if a ship arrives in port and has a cargo and there fifteen or thirty day period of inspection fifteen or thirty day period of time for payment it would make no sense and it would really grind commerce to a halt if we required that ship to remain in dock in precisely the point that your opponent is making that that you're arguing for something that will defeat the free flow of commerce because if if it weren't for allowing the maritime lee to attach in accordance with their agreements repeated agreements then you know we dispatch ship and for we would we would not have gone ahead and done these things and by allowing sophisticated parties to agree that the maritime wein is going to attach to a later shipment of goods you aid and assist and encourage the extension of credit which favors the free flow of goods with you to the contrary to the contrary because those goods then could leave possession and the goods that have already left possession no other words the goods that were not paid for but were delivered there now in the stream of conquerors but to leave that aside commerce if you allow goods that have already been released now to be held if you will if you has now it is asian if you have goods in your possession and you allow those to be held hostage for goods that had already been released you're not aiding commerce at all you to ship your next shipment of goods if i didn't have the assurance that what you all are the two million bucks you already owe me here i'm going to get it because i got two million bucks with the goods right here because the entities that a problem that these are secretly means that exist and you have other creditors that have expectations that are defeated goodness isn't that a problem with the free flow of commerce precisely you said it much better than i could articulate it i was trying to but the fact of the matter is that you have letters of credit issued for a particular shipments and they have to be expectation of when they're shipping charges or paid they get their goods if they keep it don't they have that very same problem with every maritime in other words since they are secret let's let's set aside the fact that there's a published here if you're right because there is a publisher there post says the very same things that we've been talking about the relevant  they're not really double blind supersecret there's a publish there but set that aside for no no that tariff your honor i'm sorry that is a double block that tariff is unrelated to the maritime we see that that's the dick the the problem here is that the language you're corking about is contractual that is the consensual agreement to really that's completely different well then you're done with that's what she keeps a him here by seems to say and so does the ninth circuit case will just stick management and so does reach a back to good to kate and the wheezy have a case about the wood chips they all seem to be saying sophisticated parties can contract and  logistics management case i'm respectfully disagree with the notion that a maritime ruling can be extended for anything beyond conditional delivery there in the two hundred years since the bird of paradise there's not a single case that says that you can extend the maritime wing to a shipment that possession has already been really pushed up well if you're talking about that has already been relinquish not i'm not i'm not sure i'm following you but but before we go down that path explain to me if you would what it is about  these two parties and the agreement they've got and maybe i'm so sorry you may have said earlier that you the world imports is not a party but i was under the impression including from your briefing that world imports was provides for the maritime going to be extended how is it functionally different for third parties that is other creditors who might have an interest in what world  is doing if it's if it if the lien is secret and carefully nobody knows about it how is it any different for them to be confronted with a lien on that shipment which was secret and confronted with a lien on that shipment just because they're secretly said it implicates third party interests because it created as a matter of law and are secretly ok there are the that problem for third parties is going to be the same whether the two million dollars in bet arises on this shipment were the two million dollars of debt arises from a previous shipment right it's still going to be secret it's still going to be a problem and yet the law says the free f goods is important enough to us that secret or not reinforce it so right now and the reason i say no is because what people know is that the lean in the secret maritime green at its worst is limited to the shipping charges for the goods that are in possession of the ship or on the carrier in question so it but but that could be the first value of it right it could  something that has a full value of two million it costs two million to ship in this case and it's a perfect example you have one hundred twenty thousand dollars worth of shipping charges on it two million dollars shipment and everybody in the world knows that the worst case scenario and be extended in one respect in only one respect and that is with respect to conditional delivery you have the friend the freight of the cape cases where you're calling about a completely different city area where you have bank financing and you're talking about  applicable in this case is because they have never o e c d has never asserted a generally they have always asserted america iwate and all of their reference to the language in the bill been to tariff and the bills of lading all of that language all relates to the generally not the maritime we when we went to trial in this matter before the bankruptcy court we put on testimony at the end of the day it was agreed by all parties that the it in regards to just a couple of points or race or bird of paradise a language he says this is a very limited situation address just want to quote the language or this however may have frame you'll never have a circumstance ever were a shipper has a value has a lien on goods that is equal to the value of the goods because that's just not the way the system operates and therefore the people who extend credit others who extend credit believe they're going to have some security there and if we accept the rule that we see is advancing  greater than the a value of the cargo your honor if i could i'd like to i think it's an important point they seem to suggest well because she used the word general here it's not a maritime when your honor that is simply contrary to the overwhelming w authority the supreme court in norfolk southern versus kirby said made clear the determination of whether a contract is maritime trance on whether it has reference to maritime service or maritime first i think he seems to be suggesting they're not maritime which i think the third circuit one hundred years ago said from time immemorial a bill of lading is the definition of a maritime contract it's not so that issue that somehow this isn't a to review them in fact shippers are presumed to know the contents of a tariff here the bill awaiting provisions relied upon were contained in the tower that have the force of the law so it's not as if this is not a secret that no