the honorable united states court of appeals for the st circuit is now in session all person having any this is before this honorable court may give their attendance and they shall be heard god save the united states of america and this honorable court to not stand just because of that because otherwise the little law would not would not be respect that and it is important in this particular case for the court to take notice that brothel where they where you go to fight it was taking place i didn't hear you clearly did your client have an opportunity because he received go or i should say they received notice bondholders to this case is not controlled by angelou's in really under supreme court precedents there was a per se taking and determinations in a confidential mediation can not constitute proof of just were raised in our opening brief but before i go on to those points i want to respond to the questions that judge to ray and judge howard asked about football movements and there are several points i'd like to make  coping bondholder appellants are seeking relief that is feasible that does not require unwinding of any securities transactions and would not harm innocent rd parties only the commonwealth would be affected by giving up a small portion of the money that it improperly took about the same as the three hundred and thirty two million that was paid to hedge funds and other favorite participants in the mediation also other relate that we're seeking such as they paid in the district courts just compensation finding would like wise not require unwinding any securities transactions and i'd prefer your honour's to the case we cited which makes the point supreme court's decision in mission product is dispositive the promise of equitable moot this is that the court has discretion not to determine a case on the merits but mission products says is  an appeal may be dismissed only if it is impossible for the court to grant any effect whatsoever so the court does not have discretion even for mission product relief was possible this court's decisions had repeatedly refused to dismiss an equitable grounds even where the planner transaction had been consummated even though no state had been sought this is not a case where anyone has put in significant new money thousand and nine states three times in the purse three pages that it provides for creating and perfecting of lean on the revenues of cocaine in favor of its bond holders act eighteen states this lien on revenues bonds were sold they were sold on the basis that your principal and your interest rate could not be reduced without your consent and so to take from bondholders who as the record stands it's undisputed respectfully i think the district court had a responsibility to resolve the fundamental legal issue i think it was an easy issue for her to resolve because in fact when she issued her ruling here she did rule that kofi lane and structure were valid and there's no material difference between the old compete in the lane and structure and the new coping of lean and structure and in addition to the fact that the commonwealth ought to find the property interest they  pledge of sales tax revenues to bondholders the stated valid and binding as of the time it was made the statute provided that revenues subsequently received should be subject to plain immediately without the need for any other act and the commonwealth had a non impairment undertaking here in favor of any person any person who acquired scope enough by assuring all that there would be no amendment of the statute to undermine any obligation or commitment to likewise i don't know that i did at the time your honor it's something where i st got in there than this towards the very end of two thousand and eighteen when they finally did after all the deals were cut they mail the court having said it's not going to entertain information regarding events or actions in the mediation then relies on that for a just compensation determination which your honor i respectfully submit is not appropriate it's not appropriate under rule eight of the rules of evidence that precludes the use of settlement results and it's not appropriate under the quote court's own order and here there was no public record at record and certainly there was no public record and the court you know made the assertion in its opinion that well there were some ordinated bond holders with great interest but a shirt which once of support the native individual bondholders but they actually included people on the subordinated bond side so to speak in the judge's view who actually had twenty times for greater interest the commonwealth side and actually were involved in the the commonwealth representative so basically our position is that plan confirmation cannot be used to abrogate a leaning the supreme court in the do stuff case says quote liens passed through bankruptcy of an adversary proceeding and that is the requirement that itself is fatal so as things now stand there is no judicial determination that the brain was invalid and the revenues that it made on deposit with the trustee post petition interest payments and was never in payment the paul could you go back to the city unwinding issue here is what you're saying is that the confirmed plan would remain in place except the release that the commonwealth got their leases your claims claims like yours that's correct and we have shown and this is mr elliott stuck with ration that was submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss based on equitable muchos that the court denied with recognition the merits panel may refer to that issue but mr elliot's declaration spelt out the amounts involved here for the non consenting bond holders and if the order is vacated and modified as we have requested the amounts are basically approximately the same as was paid to the various hedge funds and participants in this confidential mediation and say do we have provides that people in a class are entitled to equal treatment unless they otherwise consent so for the ninety percent that consented which are basically these large hedge funds and other major investors the people  consented happened greed to take less those who did not consent are entitled to be compensated as we have laid out and i'd like to just note that there's also an issue that really is concerning the fact that the the bankruptcy cause has been violated here the bankruptcy quad's requires that laws on the subject of bankruptcies be uniform throughout the united states a judge you have a concurrence in the franklin case and you were clear there that you know poor means unequivocal and unambiguous like the concurrence well they didn't address the issue one way or the other the all the funds to pay debt service if the lane was not advocated thena would not have even been allowed to file under chapter nine because solvent debtors cannot file under chapter nine the oversight board has taken the position here a solvent debtor can file under permits we dispute that but that's what's occurred so we have the spectacle of instrumentality of the commonwealth which was set up to secure the bondholders they that if their position ultimately was up held on the merits it would impact not just people in terms of old coping to bond hold their interest but their position would actually upset the new  so it's something where fundamentally that underscores i think why the district judge really had a responsibility to determine the fundamental issue of the legal and legality and validity it should not have been held back after the broker dealer if they didn't appeal took time presumably they took their money why would they have rights just because you have asserted your rights differently th were actually dozens of individual bond holders who put in letters objecting to what was happening in the district judge entered an order that's the docket poor poor poor one that just said she wasn't even going to consider that because they weren't served john doe gets fifty percent of what he's claimed might have been thirty days runs john go never appeals he takes the money and goes and spends it meanwhile in the exact consent which the people that's supported and voted yes did are entitled to equal treatment with others in their class so not only just that's just saying what they claim is i'm talking about talent procedure here it's a judgement is final and someone doesn't file a notice bound by it well we have standing to challenge the order and judgment as we have our relief that we've sought to vacate and modified that order in judgment and i believe your honor that you do have a eight and modify that and frankly wall you know it just as a matter of equity to the individuals here who were not notified of the confidential mediation not allowed to participate i respectfully think that the i thank you thank you very much mr hines would you mind muting your as well as your video and mr bienenstock you can turn your audio and video honor if it's ok with the court we were going to have peter friedman speak st because he's going to address the equitable  all right that's fine debtor secured the substantial concessions provided by the settlement and the plan so without lists at the releases there is no plan left the commonwealth games doesn't it doesn't commonwealth's plan that we independently in a commonwealth case and jointly in the kofi annan plan if you take that out you destroy the plan because the how can the commonwealth continue to be bound to a settlement where instead of paying extreme situation it faces the possibility of paying x plus three hundred and sixteen million dollars a consideration let me stay with that for saying it's obviously a harder one than the one that i understood and i didn't realise that the non class individuals actually have three hundred million dollars plans but let's assume that is and let's assume that and therefore the commonwealth was potentially on the hook to then three hundred million to be negotiated not what's their choice at that point it choice  walk away from the plan and do and be stuck with a three hundred million dollars there transaction costs and getting back to having a plan would end up coming close to that you're out of the court can order the distance in a district court order to the payment of three hundred and fifty million dollars to nice parties that the commonwealth might well conclude that the settlement doesn't work in those circumstances there is that the court would have to find that that was a fair and reasonable settlement in light of the between the commonwealth and kofi anna i think what's missing from the entirety of the presentation by mr hines is it the plan is the result of a settlement of two specific litigations a litigation between the commonwealth  anna over the validity of the coating a structure right and the court concluded after hearing testimony and declarations and reviewing other evidence and nine months plus of litigation and summary judgment top i r world gets to show up there was an interview with a geisha between senior bondholders and the junior bond holders mr hyde for whatever reason opted not to participate just as he opted not to participate in the mediation where the court published information at the very beginning of the case that there would be a mediation and who to contact including the email address of the person the contact with respect the mediation those two disputes were settled as part of this title three k plan of adjustment and so there's no mechanism to simply say pay three hundred and fifty million dollars more to one party you would have to void the settlement and when you void the settlement you void the entire plan of adjustment because the settlement is a condition precedent to the plan i'm just so that's why i think it's easy to satisfy the component of equitable moving us that if there is no effective relief that can be given and you would be destroying with respect to find would you still stick to your assertion that they're joined at the hip and if you would then well i think i would because there is no principled distinction between the two on the other equitable  factors and i think strictly speaking you would not be able to you know there the plan was to have to be vacated because you would the court doesn't have the ability to say to the commonwealth under the plan structure you must pay one hundred thousand dollars made in reaching the settlement would we have the ability and you know a specific case to decide whether severing that particular claim given that mr hind did not agree to any of this is several because it's non material would wouldn't we have the ability to do that i don't think so your honor i think the whole point of bankruptcy is that classes can bind dissenting members without those dissenting members having the right to say come come up later on appeal and say treat me differently but i think that would actually set a terrible precedent of saying that the bankruptcy code can't do precisely what it's supposed to do which is bind members of a voting class and i think that would actually open the door to terrible mischief where individual creditors in the future could assert well i don't like the treatment on getting as a member of a class even though my class abound and i think it must have been a stock will discuss in great detail that classes can bind people like mr parties what i'm saying is mr hind like every other creditor is bound by the courts conclusion after reviewing the evidence that the settlement was fair and reasonable and that evidence included multiple declarations about the merits of the commonwealth kofi anan dispute and two separate litigation is the judge swain had overseen for years the intercollegiate or action between senior and junior creditors and the commonwealth  had between the commonwealth agent and kofi anan stage and that was the record before judge frank judge swain's reference to the mediation simply reflect that parties who have had hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars at stake concluded after looking at all of that evidence that it was better to settle than to roll the dice but judge slaying still reached a stiff the conclusions that are entitled substantial deference under the appellate standard for over and nineteen and the st circuits jurisprudence begs for parties to reach settlements rather than rolling the dice and the proof that this is the best settlement is a good idea is the overwhelming acceptance of creditors who receive nothing more than new bonds so i think we would be setting a very dangerous precedent to get will nine thousand and nineteen dollars which is the foundation of bankruptcy settlements bankruptcy is a collective  for years evaluated the merits and said for each step or is this a fair and reasonable settlement is it supported by massive amounts of creditors could each side do a lot worse what mr hyde wants you to do is basically say every case everybody has to roll the dice and get one hundred percent or nothing that's not the way back of the law works and it's completely inconsistent with st circuit pre friedman could you help me some on the bankruptcy issue because the the future stream of revenues is always hung over a lot of these cases because of questions about exactly what it is can you have a security interest in it it i s and so on if we had a model here where we have a debtor if not a house if that ten creditors that all have a security interest in a house and it's enough the value of the house is enough to pay off all ten dollars but then the state comes in and says i want to take that house it's really ours the house owner get or says no it isn't you can't take it they have a dispute debtor goes into bankruptcy th everything has to get resolved the horizontal dispute between the getter in the state and the debtor as opposed to its creditors would the same model be applicable here is that how a bankruptcy proceeding in ordinary course would run such that a couple of the creditors might want to fight to the end and yet they couldn't because what would approve a settlement that would give them each zero dollars ninety cents on the dollar that's right and to be fair i'll let mr bean stock and address the taking over the property issues if you rais the securitization issues but yes i think the whole purpose of bankruptcy is to what classes make determinations on their treatment and to permit settlements all sorts of rights and what's your best case you would point to that that's i mean i guess it's a struggle decide the case because that's just an elemental principle of bankruptcy that parties can act if they're similarly situated they're bound by class treatment if you get a two thirds vote in terms of dollar and fifty percent in members i may have that backwards i was just a little confused about numerosity and dollar figures i think it's two thirds in dollars that is fifty percent numbers that's what bankruptcy is about it's collective proceeding that let's write speak group rights be compromised i think you can in fact and if you're not a evaluated whether the merits of before her morning warranted entering an order consistent with the terms of the mediation jensen did not say there is a mediation error go the plan is approved she looked at the can say is if you look at the record before judge swank every constitutional issue was briefed for years there were two pardons were really decided when i would like to know  negotiations there was somebody there was a and agent appointed on behalf of the coast being a creditors and an agent appointed on behalf of commonwealth creditors that was done via a public proceeding judge slane approved those appointments each of those sides filed motions summary judgment motions after briefing and discovery those parties then said we settle they propose their settlement to judge swing who had the benefit of evaluating each side's constitutional arguments she then concluded that either side could do a lot worse than the settlement after considering the constitutional the cons the merits of constitutionality of those arguments she concluded one cited when the other side might win each side would prefer half a loaf  to decide what the constitution or political me is oh you people objected to it so it didn't happen that's right out of the parties including the judge especially given the involvement of federal in bankruptcy law issues it was more appropriate for judge address equitable minister that's like saying if a court decides article three standing in one case it wipes away the doctrine of prevention standing that is obviously untrue and the other point i would like to make the is that with respect to a stay these parties w myself unfortunately called hold on i just want to make sure there aren't additional questions all right you were pressured to do so i have got myself off track mr bienenstock are you up now that's fine your honor that works have been balor with go next and then there's one other speaker all right chapter knowing municipality case there are some security claims and the same is there are in the title three case here the only difference here is that usually the litigants holding the secured claims do not emphasize the words th amendment and constitutionality to ring alarm bells as much as they've been raised here they are secure claims and the question is what is the value it's it's common ground that here was what was their collateral not the value what was their collateral because when push came to shove the commonwealth creditors and the commonwealth said wait a minute those sales and use taxes that our legislation previously said we're keeping as property are really not that was the dispute it was not a frivolous dispute and i just want to quickly give you the reasons why not so you have a feeling for what people were fighting about the commonwealth creates the sales and use tax collects the sales and use tax and can repeal the sales and use tax yes it's one of the speakers said the commonwealth covenanted not to repeal it but as justice scalia's the late justice scalia's book on statutory interpretation shows one legislature cannot bind the next in addition this court in the st circuit has twice in its jurisprudence over i would say the less twenty five years once within the last perhaps ten or fifteen said that when state law says someone has title or owns property it doesn't mean that is binding in a federal bankruptcy or title three kind of bankruptcy case the specific examples where the owner of a liquor license was interpreted as not property and in not i think maine or massachusetts when you take a mortgage the lender gets a deed of title and this court said well the lender may look like he has title and may have it under state law but for bankruptcy law purposes the title remains in the debtor so given all of the commonwealth control over the sales and used taxes and these other concepts i've mentioned there was a dispute now how to resolve the dispute the premise of statute says the oversight board is they sol representative in title three of each debtor so comfy and the commonwealth the oversight court could have it's also given the exclusive right to propose a plan it could have simply made a few phone calls to creditors got a sense of what would be voted for or propose a plan instead it had a lot more elaborate process it appointed two agents and it said to those agents litigate this which they did they filed a complaint was filed they then piled duelling summary judgment motions and then see if you can settle it and the oversight board retained the right with judge wayne's approval if it didn't like what was going on to just propose a plan on its own well the two agents did come to an agreement and then one got cold feet so the oversight board stepped in and proposed a cafe in a plan that adopted the settlement that was reached before the cold feet it which not required by anything in premise a confirmation requirement in for me so are in section three hundred and fourteen be there is not one requirement that says to confirm a plan the court has to see that there was a mediation or a settlement process we didn't have to talk to anybody we could have just proposed a plan creditors would either accept or reject it in this case to add to the fairness not to subtract from it there was a super duper elaborate process using federal judges of all levels bankruptcy court district court circuit court to meet with the creditors on all sides and to try to come up with something that would have a lot of value and because these were big numbers that katrina had approximately eighteen billion dollars of debt and that process worked and the appellant's here today not one of them says they asked to be in that mediation and work screwed it because they didn't and everything that was going on is on a public free website maintained by prime clerk so the mediation order that allows people to ask to come in as long as they sign a confidentiality agreement that was ask to come into the mediation and and then participate yes yes this this happened over a period of a roughly a year give or take and there were multiple meetings and and everyone was represented by sophisticated counsel all the big firms this was hashed out but that only adds to the fairness it was never required for the fairness where you see that the matter what accepted by super overwhelming margins and if any of the appellant's had come into the room and said we don't like it give us more on the caffeine a junior side it doesn't take any imagination to know that they wouldn't have convinced the billions of dollars of debt voting to the contrary over their desires now to to address judge chaotic questions regarding that this constitutionality of the determinate concept is constitutional claim plain and simple was he wants the value of his collateral he doesn't like the outcome as to what his collateral was and he doesn't like that the bankruptcy two thirds of the amount that vote if a class is votes to accept the dissenters such as mr hines are bound now to show how fair that is even to non bankruptcy lawyers and judges let's look at what would happen if that were not the rule then if every district hiring could stand up after confirmation and say well i was in the minority but it doesn't matter i'm going to bring a lawsuit and proof that settlement was fed and that the collateral with value the wrong way and if i win i get all my money that can't work because you could you would never know what the settlement is you would always be subject the reason i'm raising it is that in that case two preferred shareholders appealed a confirmation order and they got a settlement and they said this is great we got more than the rest of the class so the spin court said no it's not great even though the rest of the class did not appeal you were effectively representatives of the class and you can't take all that money for yourself you have to class that there was a can thirds majority of interests that accepted the plan so he's deemed to have accepted it well he is bound by the acceptance we know that he personally did not accept he probably rejected w bound by the acceptance of the majority no the other points i want to make to the extent i have more time is on the issue of the legislation the bank the district court under  three did not need any territory legislation to discharge debt or to confirm a plan providing for the issuance of new debt the legislation was beneficial for only one reason by getting the imprimatur or of the puerto rico legislature on this new debt the market would not question it so it would trade for a higher value and that's why the debtors could phina and the creditors all wanted that legislation but that legislation by itself did nothing in terms of affecting appellants rights except it gave them more value because they did collect as all the other junior and senior could phina bond holders collected in this case they collected and are collecting a hefty amount and their bonds will trade higher are trading higher because the legislature blessed what the title three court was confirming to the extent that they argue that the legislative act of cancelling the old debt violates the contracts clause in the constitution they are grossly mistaken and the reason they're grossly mistaken is that number one it was the title three court through the plan that this church in extinguish the old debt as as a function of federal law the for the appellants to come in here and say there was an impairment of contractual obligations it's like walking into a church and accusing the priest of practicing religion that is what the title three court is supposed to do and did do and you can't confirm a plan unless you and perry get unless you started with enough money to pay off all the debt which is contrary to the reason why you are in title three dollars in the st place by the law of new york is there any particular reason to be the bonds before that all said they would be tempered by the laws of puerto rico if if if it which new york your honor it was because that's the way the creditors accepting the new bonds wanted it so that they could litigate basically from where they're from to the most for the most part and also your honor puerto rico when it will all of this case that's good things that happen sell them they found that's what they have to provide ok thank you proposed amended plan as for the bankruptcy and federal rules and the applicable case measure an order they did not dispute that they were afforded an opportunity to submit a written objection to the proposed them and that plan that they in fact submitted and with an objection to the plan they received notice of the confirmation hearing they were afforded an opportunity to appear and be heard at the confirmation hearing and received a decision overruling the merits of their objections moreover opponents cannot point to a single perhaps comes out of left field perhaps i should have asked mr friedman this but i think that you know i think that your client is one of the one of the folks who saying that we should simply decide the pinto lugo matter on equitable mountainous grounds and not get into the merits your arguing the merits my question is this if if we if we just look at whether they sat on their rights didn't seek a stay didn't seek an expedited appeal it seems to me that all we would be saying even in clothing holding for your side on that basis is simply that you've got to take those two steps and then you've preserved all of your merits arguments that doesn't seem to me to really get anybody very much and so i'm wondering really shouldn't we be getting into both om procedurally what they did or didn't do in terms of aggressively asserting their appellate rights or their state or seeking a stay and the merits which is what you're issue i believe that ultimately and whether or not the appellant's in this case moved to stay or did not move to stay it is simply one of a multiple but the custody of elements that must be taken into consideration of the conflicts of substantial issues that they raised were waived because they did not raise on appeal those specific issues and while we're prepared to discuss them and explain to you on it why you know the issues concerning the new bomb legislation are a political question that should not be merits one additional point i would like to discuss your honor is it goes back to a question that was asked earlier is in connection with the challenge made to the new bond legislation by the pennants predicated was an act that by both the house and the senate in puerto rico and was signed by the governor on it to be purportedly unwind the result of the political process simply because this agreement says stroke and try to procedural all right thank you additional questions by the judges bauer if you would new thank you mr cooper yes may please the court david cooper on behalf of scoping a senior vanu holders coalition not be addressing solely the equitable mootness issue there's been a lot of discussion of the merits but the critical point here is that if the appellant's had brought a state motion this court could have considered th merits as part of that state motion before the plan was executed before reorganize communicates with the bonds and issued trail going dollars in new bonds before there's new bonds were treated hundreds of thousands of times where there were billions of dollars  corkers instead your parents made a choice they chose not to seek a stay in the district court or in this court and to appeal only after the plan went into effect now this choice has consequences and the consequence i would under the mind the rights of rd parties as well as the commonwealth of puerto rico let me stop you right there if they had sought a state and it was denied and if they had sought an expedited appeal and were not granted that then where are we so i think there are two things to point out on that has that we have a plan that you say can't be unwound yes and so our position would be in that situation that even the their claims would be ethnically moot but certainly don't get much harder to this one where they made a specific choice not to seek a stay not to seek an expedited appeal but i'd also like to point out that that situation virtually never arises and the reason it virtually never arises is got appeals so no one had filed a notice of appeal and no one had filed a motion to state you're in the district court or in this court so while it was certainly possible that someone would appeal after the implemented implementation of the plan there was no way to know at that point whether or not so the real question to the real question here is what happens when they decided not to ask for a stay and would this in fact be equitable and as has been discussed in this oral argument there barring severability that is the appellant's claims essentially you can pay offs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars without otherwise affecting the planet settlement but there are conditions specifically in the plan specifically directed to the  are not separable from the plan we're not aware of any legal basis for setting aside those nonsense or building provisions but even putting them aside for the moment providing relief to the appellants would necessarily require provide i do seem treatment for each claim or interest of a particular class unless the holder of a particular thing or interest agrees to a less favorable treatment also for such particular claim or interest and quote no one  such that your parents and only the appellant's get some benefits get some greater recovery than other creditors in their class so what that effectively means is that if you want to put five cooperate to the appellants that means that you also have to rewrite the plan to give greater recovery to all the other people in those class of predators and once you are doing that you are rewriting the plan you're rewriting entire allocation of funds in the plan you're rewriting the settlement and once you are going all of those things then the plan is affectively void and all of the transactions that are already accrued under the plan are at best suspect and seemingly void as well and so this idea that you can simply drop out a certain amount of money it is fiction it is never happened we are never they do not cite any case where has ever happened and it certainly cannot happen in a case like this where there is an up and integral plan and settlement that the just report specifically recognized could not be undone once you start pulling on that thread once you start saying the money should be allocated differently than old the parties can say that the money should've been allocated differently and the plan is effectively loike and the result of that as it's virtually undisputed would be have no questions why don't you take a minute and wrap up mr cooper sure i just want to get to the last point i'll make is in response to judge howard's question about why the marriage should be considered along with equitable  made a choice not to have been considered at a time when it would not undermine the rights of their parties and so to consider the merits anyway as part of decadence doctrine we're going to mine the very point of the doctrine which is to encourage parties to come forward st in the st instance with the state motion so that we're not in a hine can you hear me now yes let me just respond to some of the points that have been made the plan was actually conditioned on the new bond legislation no new bond legislation no plan and we cite the record on page forty four of our reply they have not cited any case that says that in effect a bankruptcy court or district court acting in bankruptcy can require a mediation question they have cited no case where what's occurred here has occurred bear in mind that the judge could have for example appointed a committee to represent all bondholders including individuals a committee with the all bondholders including individuals could have done that did not instead we had self interested parties everyone who participated in the confidential mediation got a benefit that and many kids and several you know your honor i've looked at those those are from early in the case from two thousand and seventeen frankly intel getting notice of the plan a confirmation at the end of two thousand and eighteen i was not reviewing the docket in the for ninety days so from the point of view of individual bondholders there was a simple way to provide notice they could have sent a notice to the people who filed proves the claims they have the addresses they have the emails they didn't send a notice  in terms of the voting mechanism here the bonds were sold on the basis that the commonwealth would not alter any of one's rights and that there be no change in principle or interest without your consent or with out the bond holders consent and one of our constitutional points under the th amendment is that that cannot be altered retroactively to take our property a security industrial bradford among other  brief there's a reference to the th amendment being an alarm bell i respectfully submit the th amendment to our constitution is not an alarm bell it's the constitution of the district court in saying that there was just compensation only relied on this confidential mediation and i'd refer to our agenda roman one page two hundred and sixteen the district court's opinion bind one and two on that page we've heard about non severability  may be true for the federal and there's a reference to the winstar case in this courts and to lucy in opinion but we're talking here about the commonwealth which is subject to the contracts clause and it's very clear that the u purported to modify and the united states supreme court said even that modest modification that did not affect people's rights to payment was unconstitutional we've decided on the takings claim point lynch motion was in the commonwealth title three not in the cold feet of proceedings in the cofee no proceedings and this was clearly spelled out on the record at the outset of the confirmation hearing was also clear i think from the court's own opinion was very clear that the cofee and whether or not this was appropriate for coping to bondholders was for the copying of plan they were not required to participate in the commonwealth whatever general law there might be about preferring settlement has no application what so weber to abrogate a constitutional and statutory rights thank you thank you mr hyde thank you very much your hono all right i think that covers this that includes the argument in this case