begin grateful for your time this afternoon in considering this matter and appreciate the efforts that you've put forth in this case i initially just for the panel's information i'd reserved a minute a one i think we can go through fairly quickly and that is with respect to the bankruptcy court summary judgment order itself specifically it's finding that under the record presented there there were not a set of facts that they could i like to argue today as well like i said as to this st issue i'll be as brief as possible on that initial order i think the bankruptcy court identified the two step analysis in this discharge ability d approach in th adversarial proceeding and frankly focused on that st step which was d whether or not the plaintiffs can establish that the debtor is liable on an enforceable obligation under any sort of non bankruptcy law and i think what the court did is the court identified the general rule under this non bankruptcy law the underdog rascal law which is that and it's similar i think in most states individual members and managers of a limited liability company are generally not liable for the debts or obligations of that company absent proceeding forward on a cause of action to pierce the corporate veil and i think that's where the court stopped i think unfortunately that general rule while i agree that that is the general rule never ask it goes on to identify an exception to that rule and i've cited these cases in my brief in fact the st one i cite is the in re white case that was actually decided by the bankruptcy court here in nebraska in two thousand and four where the exception to the rule is laid forth it says however it's clearly established in nebraska and elsewhere that a director officer of a corporation is eventually liable for fraudulent acts or false representations of his own or which he participates even though his actions may be in further and of corporate business and importantly here too it provides when  include a claim to pierce the corporate veil and i think that that's allowed under under what we're talking about here and why where it identifies that under this kind of a torrid action there is no need to pierce the corporate veil liability can be claim because there was no objection and he entered an order on that objection stating at that and the motion for summary judgment any of the issues raised that can you tell me how you differentiate between the claim you filed the proof of claim and b a p if there is any difference between the two well i guess yeah i can thank you your honor i appreciate that lead and i i i i guess i would answer it two ways ok number one i think it's important to look at what the trustee was objecting to to the claims process and what the bankruptcy court determination was and that in that process and i think what's also helpful is to look at the way the bankruptcy court d characterized that process when it was deciding the adversary proceeding the trustee he objected to various claims here because they were list not initially they were listed number one as corporate debts and not personal debts in the in the debtors schedule and the trustee indicates here that none of the listed claims includes any evidence of a personal guarantee so the when we as it characterizes it's own its own sustaining of that objection in its adversary proceeding summary judgment order the the bankruptcy court indicates that the alleged debt is represented by this proof of claim which contains invoices for the subcontracts those documents all reference signature none of them name the buchanans after hearing the court's abstained the trustee detections finding that he invoices were all addressed to the business at the business address and there was no evidence t personally guaranteed the debt i think what the what the court decided in the claims process was limited to those two things the invoices were addressed to the signatures and not the earth signature electric enough to be canons and that there is no evidence of a personal guarantee none of neither of those things are contested in the adversary complaint where i think fraud is the issue and the extent to which the debtors are liable for their fraud which then shifts those corporate debts that we're talking about in the claims process over to the individual debtors well let me ask you this why you know if if you have the atmosphere a proceeding as i understand it docket was pending before you filed the proof of client can you tell me why you didn't object proof the claim to ensure that there wouldn't be any confusion well yeah certainly a couple of different considerations were present when that was going on obviously the court indicated we had the previously pending adversary complaint you know obviously there are some limitations to what we can and can't do in that claims process what was my feeling at the time you know through that adversary the preexisting adversary we had a discovery process we had we had a discovery plan put down we would go through all of the formalities of a trial there and run through run through all of that procedure i thought that was a better opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the proceeding the other i think the other the other thing that i that i was looking at and argued a little bit my brief to there was no objection by the buchanans to having these two issues run simultaneously and i tried to cite in my brief the law out there where without that objection to the simultaneous proceedings you res judicata is is waived by the buchanans when they don't make that objection should there be some sort of inconsistent ruling in the two actions that were running at least simultaneously and i think the last consideration i claim i felt as if you know moving through the process of an adversary with with the type of procedure that we had that that certainly would it you know if the if the decision the adversary process came out favorable to london ross that would certainly be that cause or opportunity for the bankruptcy court then to you reconsider its disallowance of the claim mr i couldn't you would agree wouldn't well i guess what i would go back to is i think we i think we're deciding two different things in each of the proceedings but i think because of the kind of the materials that i just went through with the pre existing adversary complaint pending i thought that going through that process could still be allowed and not subject to rest today which which which i think is where you're getting at with the with the  with the proof of claim a right to payment issue i'm not sure i'm going the route of race to the kaaba i guess what i'm indicating is how can you maintain a five hundred and twenty three action if there is no claim well all because i i don't have any objection to the decision made in the claims process that the invoices were sent to signature electric they were initially debts of signature electric and there is no personal guarantee i'm using the adversary process to prove the fraud which then makes takes those debts and and and creates personal liability for the debtor because i don't think the order just along the claim was limited to just saying your client didn't hold a claim based on contract the order disallowed the claim in so wouldn't that in compas any at all bases for your client's claim i understand your argument about the two different matters but an order was interred disallowing the claim and that order was not limited in the manner that i suspect you would like it to be limited wasn't it incumbent it was based on the fraud of the debtor what yes thank you i think because these because the claims process and the adversary proceed in running at the same time if i don't if we don't have an objection by the defendant or the debtor in this case to considering this you know the viability of a claim in two separate proceedings here i think without that objection that the debtor waves that defense and so i thought though that i don't know that it was incumbent on me because there was there was no objection to that from the ge i have a cough a non code related cold that i get every year and it's annoying for me and if i cough that will be annoying for you and i apologize for the bankruptcy courts order and we have argued in our brief and we argued that the prime resolved the issue of whether or not there was a for which now is that really correct because wh bankruptcy court ruled in and what the trustee objected to is the claim that was filed under the proof of client there hasn't been any determination on whether or not there is an debt owing for fraud did you file a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim because there was no liability well the we did not what we did was filed that's when we filed the motion for summ close the actual fraud argument that's raised under state law well it does because at the time that that to do was resist and come in and say i've got i've got four i and our you have fog claim that is that is the basis for my claim in my or debt issue and till after the resolution of the claims litigation or the objection by the trustee the nd thing is i didn't and i'm not even reaching the issue of of his claim it as to the six claimants five of which didn't bother to show up and that he was all that issue of whether or not there was a debt owed by the b cannons to any one of these people and one of these never had to get to that but the liability that debt arises from the fraud not from the client isn't that correct i mean great there was no guarantee our net debt if there  doesn't that then lead to liability from that you can incident still the issue of fraud just decided how can you know whether there's a stat well i think i guess i won't consider it the other way around considering it whether or not there's a bet would have to include what ross coming forward would be in the object in the trustees objection to say hey i've got i've aside and resolve the only a p but we're not so right not going to deal with it here but they didn't bother to show up when they should've and the and the court ruled and disallowed the any other questions you might have if i may ask one question please if the yes if the claim was disallowed why didn't you file a twelve b six motion when the complaint was served upon your clients for failure to state a cause of action that the complaint was served on our clients well before the claim was disall and so at the time that we answered the complaint the eyes as mere fact i don't think the the proof of claim that yet been filed so so we couldn't have filed a  all of the defenses and objections that canons had they did not identify race judicata and the last thing i would just indicate if the if the panel were to review the summary judgment order in the adversarial proceeding page to the rd pair rd full paragraph the court identifies the seven b c's under which the defendants asked for and saw a summary judgment none of which include race