care today i should i haven't looked so she got rid of just subject to the motion before the motionless decided i'm sorry she got rid of the subject matter of property that was the target of the motion before the motion with honor i personally do not know but i also believe you personally i think you represent a big law firm a prosperous client and you don't know the answer to that question nobody in the firm knows the answer that question your honor i'm sure somebody knows but damages by definition these proceedings are limited limited to identify assets of the judgment or the state of kevin where if those assets are found in the hands of her party it's ordering the turnover and satisfaction of the coachman and that's what the court did hear and that's what we believe this is the final decision under twelve ninety one and also an injunction under under twelve ninety two well it can't be a final decision if the cash disagreement that arose later when season went to post a bar there was a dispute about about the amount but i don't think that post or disputed should affect the appeal ability i mean assume that the parties agreed or we all know i don't think there's any dispute if you just were to turn over the assets there would be it would be an injunction and it gave this alternative that you could turn over the monetary value at this point that's that's the play and that's what what s over the last few years yes what's the right date well that's the dispute there is at this stage of posting a bond and we believe it would be the day to turn over the order because she has the option of turning anything different than the value of the time of the turnover here we have the turnover order is a decision on the merits of the turnover order it decides every issue that was raised in there and it's not collateral to the merits we're not talking about an order to pay costs or discovery or in order to place funds in escrow any resolution of the merits we have it final decision on the merits here of the turnover motion itself and you know the issue presented there was whether funds were probably only transferred and are available to the to the trustee in his so i think this is an injunction within the meaning of you line because it's not collateral in any way effectively is the merits decision was the amount of the bond i'm sorry what was the amount of the bond i believe it's approximately two point one million is that when you're valuing liabilities after a time of a transfer using a balance sheet task you value the liabilities as at that time as of the time of the transfer of which means you don't have perfect hindsight of how things turn out turning to the probate exception in marshall the supreme court held that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to probate a will or it minister in a state in the probate exception also precludes federal courts from disposing of property that's in the a lot of cases of the trustee has relied upon to recognize that there's any other creditor of the estate objected here understand we've got one other creditor right with a claim for one hundred flannery had sold the stock and she had done so after her husband's death and there is a very real dispute here that could very well come back to this court if it were to reach the merits about the amount they take the position which we would contend is contrary to illinois law that we measure as the date of the decision or you measure as the date she disposed of the stock which was a lesser market price took the position in the basic milling case that you look at the transfer date because that's the date when the property should have been there of a level for creditors you don't look at intervening market changes in the stock because that really punishes the party w recipient of the particular function transfer so what happened after the court issued the ruling they pretty much immediately appealed they then went into court seeking a stay of any ability collect but honestly we don't have an order that we can use to collect we don't have a dollar amount and there isn't stock that we can collect against we had a discussion which we included in the appendix the transcript of the discussion we made it clear we thought the appeal w million they took the position it was last they took the position that they wanted to go out and buy stock and post stock with the clerk we said we thought that was problematic because of changing market prices and ultimately what such palmyre did and her hands were tied because they filed a notice of appeal i don't think she could start doing additional decisions while an appeal is pending and as i understand the holdings of this court she then said that post of the maximum amount that the trust ability to come in and make your argument about why the dollar amount of might order should be less this one's argument that somehow this should be different than a long long line jurisdiction as well when you have a situation where it's not a standalone civil lawsuit you analogize to what the circumstances are in a standalone civil lawsuit and counsel argues that that's not what we have here because  is a supplementary proceeding lover's area was decided in the context of a supplementary proceeding it created the rule you're not proceeding but they make that argument based on a misreading of the dexie of the broken case and an illinois appellate court case from which  liability based on the value of the transferred assets and in that case the kennedy appellate court said yes it was totally appropriate for the circuit court to enter a judgment in the dollar amount of the transferred assets that is an appropriate use of the citation proceeding which means that a supplementary proceeding is just like a standalone civil lawsuit in the sense that you make a determination about whether the person is liable to return that asset and then you enter an order we need to do in our brief is go up to mrs when and say please pay up she'd say what do i have to pay up she pay up what she wanted to pay and then we're supposed to go into court and have a second dispute over that and that really isn't how the supplementary somehow courts work that they address issues of liability and then afford relief to the parties otherwise what you have is an advisory opinion it's an incomplete opinion it's unenforceable and it really go back down because the reality of it is we face a second fight in this court potentially if the court were to affirm if the parties don't agree about the dollar amount and somebody chooses to take it back up with regard to the manner of the car to the extent that thought she was done with this particular issue that that was based on promise fostered by mrs clinton because everyone was operating under the assumption that she still had the stock as i understand the records that issue that issue wasn't clarified into a bond hearing right it was not clarified at the argument we filed a motion they responded we replied we had an oral argument at the end of april no one indicated that during the arguments and briefed the merits but we do think it has to go back down because there is another real dispute here that would be more efficiently decided in connection with the entire marrons in terms of the other reason why we think it's not final yes we were scheduled to go to to on january seventh but because of an intervening criminal manner that judge palmer had to hear first she knew of the trial to start on january twenty fifth and we've been on trial since then are still on trial and they do raise many of the same probate exception procedural arguments race to the cutter that they raise in this particular proceeding there is an overlap and again i think if you analogize it to a standalone civil lawsuit typically if a court grants relief on one co complaint but there are other matters that are still pending in the court you don't appeal until everything is resolved all claims against all parties are resolved and here we have multiple proceedings coming out of the same with regard to the merits and the u f t a claim and the argument that somehow the liabilities of mr land should be valued at something other than the two hundred nineteen million dollars judgment we think that that is not correct under the law and that the court in what she did did not use and permissible hindsight and the reason for that is that if there is nothing wrong with the court taking recognition of the facts that were no abol on the day that the that needed to be fought in this particular proceeding but we did make clear and he made clear in this brief when you measure the assets you count you do not include assets that have either been  fraudulent transferred away so you wouldn't close the value of the stock you don't include assets held in joint tenancy so that excludes the ten million dollar lincoln park home that he holds with his wife and you don't include assets that the judgment of her claims is exempt because otherwise you out you could have a as the administrative law judge the only game in bor the illinois had her a court each addressing and assessing whether mr flynt breached had violated illinois gaming rules which is what we had to prove to show he reached contract so you had three tribunals already finding well in advance of august twelfth of twenty thirteen that he had breached the contract with a massive record you had that messed up record recreated and already in front of judge that someone could look at you have a record that showed that gaming right was offered for auction multiple times and received bids ranging from six hundred fifty million down to two hundred seventy two million you have a case where mr ryan and his co defendants presented no contrary evidence of the value they just took the position they can be held liable so that's what you had an august twelfth of two thousand and thirteen this was not a claim in its infancy with no discovery it was a fully developed record so what would you do with regard to that case i think if you if you wipe everything off and you go back to square one you took the position that we were entitled to six hundred fifty million dollars worth of damage you look at that and you say to yourself would you discount that by some probability of success bhalo the hundred million they want to count their example as us poor down to three hundred thousand i don't think you would do that i don't think it was wrong for george palm when the judgment liability has come down by the time and the date the court is assessing insolvency for purposes of a problem transfer claim he has used the judgment amount because otherwise you're in a counterfactual world where you're trying to figure out something different than what the court actually determined i would submit the polow in case that they cite this court doesn't hold that this was wrong it didn't address the situation anything like this what this court actually he fund liability would come due at the parent corporation level would there be a default by the underlying that's truly contingent the event that causes that going to occur hasn't taken place and in freeland the problem was you had  massive products liability exposure for this company and it was reversed on the basis one part of the solvency really was changed because the court to quantify that amount not that it was inappropriate to consider and there was no you liquidated judgment amount at the time of that decision so there's no case that they cite that takes a situation like this where you have a completely massive record and then for everything and come up with some other different discounted amount analysis that the hypothetical trier of fact would make a legal there and that's why i don't think you get to that forty five million dollars judgment amount with regard to the probate estate exception again they have taken the interference occurs when a federal court seeks to exercise jurisdiction over a race a piece of property that is subject to some dispute or administration by the probate court here you don't have that even when after the fact attempted to make an end run around what the district court was doing she was very careful to say that this is not probate property what she wanted the court to do was to give the property to her as fees that's the ski protection that this one has already paid to the attorneys asking that the stock somehow be given back to her so she can pay those fees we would submit that just comair was not required to order instead of turning it over to us that it be turned over to the probate estate we have an in person fraudulent transfer claim to recover the stock that's our playing and we're entitled to recover that from her individually it is not a circumstance where we are claiming something that is part of the probate estate in all circumstances other than bankruptcy where he stopped everyone from pursuing fraudulent transfer claims creditors can pursue their rights or not as they see there no one else has chosen to come forward and make the arguments we're making and there's no reason why we can't recover because there's somebody else out there who's not making those particular claims with regard to the race judicata argument the on my statute does not say that it is in lieu of all traditional principles of but that doesn't get around like any order is binding doesn't get around what does it mean to be binding and to be binding under your principles of illinois a race to the common law you have to have the same parties and the same cause of action and you don't surcharge that's where you see that statue coming into play unless the court has any other questions analogy as yes to the dispute is or is it is the amount to pay to to satisfy that but that is like a post injunction dispute there disputes arise as to how to comply with a judge with an injunction or as to whether someone asking plied with an injunction that doesn't