may have please the court my name is the n a a of angelus and i represent appellant ashot using area and in these consolidated appeals i think to reserve three minutes of my time for a bottle in a series of three post judgment orders that are on appeal today the district court ordered mystery a gives marion to turn over foreign trust assets that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of liechtenstein court it also entered a world wide injunction in violation of rule sixty nine and this court's decision in hell out freezing over one hundred fifteen million dollars of my client's assets which represents twenty two million dollars more than the underlying arbitration award it also imposes sanction of attorney's fees without articulating any basis for doing so let alone making any findings of bad faith this court stated the turnover order and we respect fully request that it now reverse all three orders the asset freezes and computing orders that mr smog and has already secured in russia and in liechtenstein mean that my client now faces a serious threat of contempt because he cannot obey every jurisdiction's orders at the same time this court stay of the turnover order is really the only thing keeping mr smog in from seeking a contempt for her in the district court in fact he threatened to seek one on the eve of this court's order staying that turnover order and i think is an impossibility a defense to the contempt i mean you get cited for content you can prove that it was are in a terrible position right now because of the conflicting orders this court's asset freeze in the turnover order directly contradict the liechtenstein court's asim care could i want to ask addressed to the defendant right that's exactly right thank you your honor actually no it's about a trust and the california court well this is about and you talk about this provision of the california law which limits how what's rejected that very argument there the argument was made that it was about the individual and not about the trust that we're talking about a trust it's a particular property and understand but i don't let's let's say you have a an ordinary trust where you have different parties in the different positions you have a settler who settles it on a trustee who's a it was settlers a in the trustees b and there's  beneficiary who's c ok so they're different people in that situation see has a beneficiary interest right but the he wouldn't in normal it's been a long time since i took trust misstates you would refer to the required to do something in his capacity as a beneficiary i mean i know trust law treats these people differently right there are several several points i'd like to make in response that in your honour's correct the language of seven zero nine zero zero one zero to answer your question  that's what i'm not understanding with respect to your major argument i understand you have other arguments which may be just dispositive actually but i'm i'm having trouble with your main one and you're saying let's go to the other side well i think what this points  your honor lichtenstein law governs this trust and they are there is a proceeding that mr smog and i'm from currently at this point asking about your reliance on the california statute ye what's what would be wrong with doing that well your honor it would it would violate the rights of the co beneficiaries in like in sign well now if you were the settler of a revokable trust the beneficiary might have some right but when it gets revoked there's no more right the rule by its terms as a beneficiary interest can i just ask because i'm confused which of the orders are we talking are you talking about or you're talking about the turn turn over order is directed to the beneficial interest not the settlers interest r correct i can understand this dialogue if we're talking about the asset freeze maybe but i don't understand it with respect to the term no thank you your honor yes it is directed to my client in his capacity as a beneficiary of the trust and and again we because this is this is complicated and the liechtenstein courts are educating this very issue there is now it's gone through a couple levels of the maybe maybe i should ask as you offer to explain it i don't understand how it's correct i thought the whole theory of it was because he had control over a well the lickin a favor in a fisheries don't have control over the trusts the sellers have control over the trusts court found that actually my client does not have pure control over the trust he would have control only if the trustee acted illegally and right again but those are and you can instruct me on trust law that whether you can revoke a trust that goes to your powers as subtle or right and this is directed at my client's interests as as a beneficiary of the truss and under the california court of appeals decision in first marriage bank that's something that cannot we can't allow this sort of and rhyme harm that i understand that i'm just having trouble understanding the first part of the so are there any developments in lichtenstein very thing that we don't we don't know about you know you're on to the latest thing is that there is an appeal  of i believe the supreme court of liechtenstein and there is a stay of of the order in the court if the court finds that this is really not not a trust is there or is there a is there a confirmation order  the court in liechtenstein says really not a trust at all at that point what happens in liechtenstein does that then move to the question of confirmation of the of the of the arbitration award yes your honor the what what is contemplated by the new york convention in these these procedures is that a party can go into the country where the assets are located and domesticate the award and and seek or rid of its execution going after those assets and if that is likely to be gone quickly and liechtenstein things happen moving finds against your client then that it is likely that the award will be confirmed and those assets will be available to mr smog is that correct and that would be the end of the matter without any action on the part of the central district of california yes you honor i believe so in the way the word has already been confirmed so it's just a question of whether those assets can be reached you know what what happens if the trust of the fall of the decision tree in the other direction so what happens if that if the court finds in favor of your client a trust that the trust is valid that the trust is valid then there will have to be some whatever the procedures are in lichtenstein for going after the person the interest in a valid trust and in california for example you would have california go to judge real under seven zero nine point one zero one zero and begin and begin proceedings against the trust in lichtenstein your honor if it's a valid trust well i'm i'm giving this and i'm following the decision trust under because under seven zero nine point zero one zero the judgment creditor has to petition a court having jurisdiction over administration of the trust so we are many steps removed from that but there is also a freeze in russia so  i just want to make clear that the liechtenstein assets are not the only but it's not the only bucket of assets that we're talking about but but none of these are in california so the assets in russia mr smog and himself has value those at over three hundred million dollars interestingly enough he has never sought to confirm the arbitration or weren't there he has never sought to go after those assets to execute on those assets i it's you can go after a pot of money before you go after a pot of money be kanchan that's correct you're on but i'm just trying to paint a picture for the court of the landscape and why it is it why is it is unusual and in fact not not typical or not intended for mr smocking to come here to california and i can i'd like to turn as your hypothetical let's assume that you have a situation where somebody has a has a dead against them instead of putting it in a trust they just put it in a bank account in a foreign country is there any problem with an order to turn that over no your honor ok that would be different and that is most of the cases that mr smog and relies on that's the critical distinction so we don't subject to the law of the other country and you can't actually perhaps would not be able to attach that money you could do that all you have is just an order in forceful by contempt to repatriate that take the money out of the bank and bring it back here that's correct your honor and again we have to think about what what reach does the district court sitting in california have over these worldwide assets and we will and the one thing that you identify as keeping him from doing it in this case is in order different from the turnover order so what's what's infirm about this thank you your honor because this is a money judgment rule sixty nine applies and that provides that a money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution and proceedings quo proceeding supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution must accord with sate law in this court this now we're looking at california law and this court's decision in hell how where this court said california law does not authorize the sort of injunctive relief that the district court granted here in aid of execution of a money judgment so we think this is a very straightforward question which i would sure the hell out of decisions or your law both on the turnover order and on the injunction because these are post judgment orders in aid of execution of the and collection of a money judgment and it would it would perhaps be different if we were in another state and i know that as i was doing my research that texas and pennsylvania i believe have some provisions for for injunctive relief but california as this court said in hell wow does not and and it would and there's to read rule sixty nine yeah i think i'm sorry it's just i'm going looking at how and so you're saying on an eight fifty four there we held that california law does not allow the issuance of any sort of injunction  as a supplement to the execution efforts i just pull up the concern but the court said that they're the party had not identified in the court have not identified any provision of california law that would allow it nor has mr smog and i nor how can we found and so but it is the order at issue in this case wasn't directed to a third party bank and it was basically saying to the bank not not the debtor not  position and the person in your client's position but to a third party to pay over to my court registry this money and i understand why a court might not have authority to do that but with respect to the asset freeze order given that the district court does have personal jurisdiction over your client why can't the court direct an order to your client saying don't do anything to dissipate assets that are otherwise that i want to be available to help this person execute because your honor it would be injunctive relief nonetheless the fact that an injunction in eight of that if you're afraid that somebody is going to dissipate the the assets before before anybody can get to them well you understand that as i understand this unusual but it's not unheard of your honor it is again going going back to i was going to say if we will read rule sixty five to authorize an injunction in the post judgment context with respect to money judgment it would effectively swallow rule sixty nine which is limited it's  limited in this context to procedures available under state law and mr smog and has not pointed to any provision of california law that would allow and i want to sanction in the supreme struction is just just sort of a general just kind of a general writ i'm not sure that you have to have and the same principles that were that animated the supreme court's decision in group all mexicano also apply here in the post judgement context we have to look at at the fact that issuing all jurisdiction over yes here i means that they then undergo under standard under standard principles if you if you've got the if you've got the defendant you've got everything that the defendant no well your honor that's a pretty that's pretty standard that's pretty standard personal jurisdiction law it is limited and he can sit for discovery and there has been a debtor's examination there has been discovery post judgment to determine where the assets are but to allow a district court cannot sitting in california issued this worldwide  if this were a case involving infringement of a copyright for example and there were a judgment holding that to be an infringement and prescribing some sort of equitable relief or even restitution or something along those lines then the district court would be acting with with its equitable authority it would not be a money judgment enforcement action that would be different so we we submit that that is a critical distinction here and i and i asked a sort of a naive question i say you're over your time you don't challenge that you owe the money at this point is that right you know your honor we don't but why don't you just pay it your honor my client would would love to the answer in russia are be there are ways to address this but instead mr smog and has chosen to come into california get a worldwide injunction and then on top of that the turnover out order is really critical i have to say i know my time is is over trust there are other beneficiaries it's not all his money it is in the courts in liechtenstein right now mr smog initiated that action again and that's why i've asked why we have asked to reassign meritorious in the end doesn't mean that we didn't think it was valid but here those are the liechtenstein trust was was created with totally separate assets from some something else not related to this dispute with mr smog and and  and we would just like an orderly way to resolve this and i fear that if we are sent back if there's anything on remand to the district court where we have the specter of contempt where we have a russian criminal proceeding that mr s initiated against my client and he was tried in absentia he fled to the us i fear what may happen and so that's why we've asked that the court please reverse the orders and remount and i would a if that's fine with the court as we stand before you this arbitration award first of all was granted by an arbitrary panel it's been confirmed in all appeals exhausted and wind it's been confirmed here and there are no substantive defenses to the award raised in this appeal it has been confirmed in lichtenstein there is no doubt that mr adie's arion owes my client the money from the arbitrary award all that this is about is a mystery his area and effort to tell the district court you can't make me pay you here that's what this is about sounds like what it's about is that they he wants t he wants to pay it out of money that's held in russia rather than money that he's got no he doesn't want to pay it he doesn't understand nobody wants to pay it but i understand that too but he doesn't he doesn't want to pay it because and the point is you know the question  raise about contempt of powers so really important point he's here this is where he is this is where there's personal jurisdiction but because this man doesn't has a hammer that this is not where the assets are apparently that seems to be that that well except what we didn't hear one word of ever is a challenge to the finding that he has control over these asses ok because hey let's talk about the turnover order since that's where you wanted to start there right so just help me ariens beneficial interest in that trust that's how you get the money in your client's pocket i disagree ok why did the order is directed to mr ijaz arion to take assets in his control in the lichtenstein trust and use them to pay my client confirms that in a number of different ways without it in any way affecting his beneficial interest in the trust how while he controls the trust he can direct the trustee to pay s he can remove the trust you're a sutler controls are as if you're a seller who controls the trust then you're not a beneficiary of the trust usually those are separate people when and when they happen to be the same person it gets confusing but it does and in the case of coun periodic monthly payments from to spend thrift trusts there couldn't be something more different than the purported trust that mr usury and created so that he retain control over his money here it's a spendthrift trust created by a difference that or to limit the spending of the beneficiary that was administered in ohio and the court said in order to get an assignment of  interest as a beneficiary in a trust you have to go under seven zero nine zero one zero be that's first marriage far removed from this case this is a case where judge real found because of the way that this trust was set up and by the way this isn't unusual f t c versus affordable media this court's decision about a cook islands trust making the same findings even though the judgment debtor in that case tried to jurisdiction or first one of those cases those two cases are about relationships between federal and state courts they fly in the face of the new york convention which is vital confirmation of arbitration awards that  contemplate parallel enforcement proceedings first of all it's the there because other thing for the new york convention was are those cases are from before the new york and they don't address international retracement just water rights in colorado in this case and yet when it came in it was in me does seem like the least tension and trust should be it should be adjudicated whether it is the seller the beneficiary should be adjudicated by the is set up in a way that this one is where they settle or slash purported beneficiary controls all the assets why not direct their fellow to do whatever is appropriate and or look whatever is appropriate and by the way he can comply well he has he might you might be telling him to do something the file it's the law of a foreign sovereign and i understand what these tiny little sovereigns it doesn't seem like it makes much difference when the law should be the same whether it's affidavit from our person who says how exactly he could comply with this record in comply with the terms of the trust you comply with liechtenstein law and if he doesn't do it counsel isn't the problem the problem from my perspective here is that is that judge real might issue an order with respect and issue findings with respect to the trust in lichtenstein that would be contradicted by the supreme court of liechtenstein that is that judge real i think it's not a valid trust it's a sham trust and he controls the whole thing and so you just pay it out and the courts of liechtenstein say this is a valid trust under liechtenstein law and he doesn't control it it's in the hands of the of the  i don't think so but you shouldn't have to have parallel proceedings when you have park this is the only place there's personal jurisdiction over this man i don't care what happens in the can so he doesn't even have a passport stein isn't  silly analogy you could say go into his home in the middle of the night and get this money it's yours yet you couldn't do you know it's not a trust it's just something about how police can shine organizes that society that telling someone here to do something on pain of contempt the problem attic to do and leak is a problem earlier in the conversation which is that a possibility is fine but the only way this money is going to be paid i think you could have in possibility is a divorce i understand that but under slim's like there are to be some limit on what you can tell someone here to do in another country you know you can't just say you can tell him and he has a defense he has an impossibility defense when he's ordered for instance in the absurd example to go and get it in the middle of the night that would be a problem with it i mean you have to admit that that would be a problem to have that kind of an order youth told to take money secreted away in liechtenstein where they won't have personal jurisdiction against him interests in the meantime there's the injunction the court there's no problem with that injunction you know council talk about how group of is there is post judgment freeze orders under the court's equitable power because dating back to preserve until eighty seven the english courts recognize what are called creditors bills which allowed a because i'm confused about how group of mexico my apply here i guess i thought that rule sixty nine funnelled us pretty much exclusively to california state law to figure out what kinds of powers the district court in the situation can exercise and i wrong in that it's for things that are in need of execution this is just a for which is well done but isn't that isn't a phrase used in aid of execution no no this is just preserving the status quo because the execution is the order of the money here and so sixty nine takes us for the enforcement part to the do it california statute one of those two we think it's the one with the controls but so you're saying that once you have a confirmed judgment in a federal district court sixty five as well from federal courts around the country none of which require that there be any sort of equitable relief so we can give you the names of those cases if i remember one was from the fifth circuit if you remember that one  don't think that's right i read i think the i think the problem is that rule sixty nine i think occupies the field of those charges and i don't think there is anything left in terms of the court's inherent equitable powers to issue injunction days of justice cardozo whether it's viewed as specific four bits of a contract they've conceded that you can issue an order to someone who has a bank account abroad to bring the money back here that's an injunction which is interesting because in the discovery depositions you know we're discovering assets for a reason mr is ariens they set up the trust was because he couldn't open a bank account interest i didn't follow that he likens this to the it's in lieu of a bank account because you can't open up a bank account because he's on the interpol list so if you can attach a bank account in this is akin to a bank account stand before you there still hasn't been a defense to owing the money and there hasn't been a good one made in this case and so the court awarded for you for that bad s and that trustee has discretion whether to grant my client funds from time to time he cannot drop direct the trustee he cannot remove the trustee there are allegations to that effect in lichtenstein that is in the litigation there and mr smug and initiated that proceeding so to the extent he doesn't trust lichtenstein courts he did seek out that proceeding next i wanted to just make clear that that counsel cited the f t c versus affordable media case that is different will sixty nine did not apply there because it was an order of restitution it was acceptable relief it was not a money judgment so that's why it's absent from the discussion there and again we have to proceed under rule sixty nine because this is a money judgment and i to go back to the bank account abroad the hypothetical your honor that if under california law because we look to pool sixty nine we look to california law we look to the general turnover statute and that would apply perhaps to a bank account again would have to look at the situation but it doesn't allow free wheeling injunctive relief there are specific procedures and if you can find leaves injunctive the right it's a turnover point out to your honor that we weren't saying that a pure worldwide injunction is something out there which allows a there is something but not for the trust not understand how that that's good then you get back into it as to what we're talking about before think it's not an argument that there's no way to get anything but a judgment against property under the california scheme that's incorporated by the federal scheme there are unique procedures that are specific to  legal well that's an interesting question but here we are going to be anything but equitable if the relief is to his to is based on the fact that he's present well so i want to say that he's also submitted to jurisdiction in liechtenstein there was a discussion about that he hasn't my client has submitted so this is not the only jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction over him and the and mr smiling and has attached my client's beneficial interest in the trust in is over the trust so again if the court has no further questions i thank you for the for the extra time thank you counsel this is a complicated case we do appreciate the arguments of counsel it was well briefed thank you very much