May I please the court Christine Cesar with the law from a Brian cave on behalf of the appellant. With the court's permission, I would like to request to reserve three minutes for a moment. That's fine. You've got an uphill battle here. All right. I mean, you've got a extremely detailed opinion of a well-respected bankruptcy judge who said, I didn't understand what was going on. If I didn't understand what was going on for sure, the bondholders didn't understand what was going on. And it was buried, and that's not the way we do business here in my court. I understand, Your Honor, and I would like to address that straight out. There was no intention to hide anything from the bankruptcy court. And the record shows that nothing, in fact, was hidden from the bankruptcy court. As a preliminary matter, the release in favor of the indenture trustee was the only thing in this settlement, which the indenture trustee was going to obtain. And it was our objective that it be fully vetted and enforced, and we took a two-step process to do that. The first was the 1919 motion, because we wanted to preview the release, both for the bankruptcy court and the bondholders. But I've got the judge concerned, is that you have, in that 1919 motion, hearing on that, he's asking, you know, what's the involvement of the trustee here, and he keeps asking, and he said, you're binding the bondholders to that. It affects the debtor in the bankruptcy estate that I oversee. If that's true, you've got to deal with your constituency. Why is the bankruptcy court involved in that? And then Mr. Schell said, well, that's because the releases that are a part of this are there. It's a global settlement, so the claims, what our position is, is that the claims against the bond-to-estier claims that would be made over against the debtors, and would deplete the estate, in effect, there would be a third-party action. And that's not what the, that's not the right answer. Well, you're on a respectfully prior to that, in addition to the papers that were submitted to the court. The 1919 motion was 17 pages. There were two pages that highlighted what we call critical terms. Did you pair with you a paragraph 23G of 33 paragraphs, is the only paragraph that mentions exactly what's happening here? You're technically correct. You did tell the court, but what the court is saying is for something of this nature, you've got to highlight it, and you've got to be honest or direct. I won't say dishonest, because you're not saying anywhere, it's dishonest, but you have to be direct and tell the court why it is that you're putting this in there. You're on an addition to the 1919 motion, which in the record it said, 1040, where these specific terms are highlighted. That was the first thing that the, that the bankruptcy court saw, and the court indicated to counsel that he had read the motion
. And in fact, before the hearing, he contacted debtors counsel, as clerk did and said, the judge has the papers. He has questions about three paragraphs in the proposed order. The proposed order was three pages. The last paragraph of which related to these releases. And the judge asked counsel to address three specific paragraphs. The paragraph relating to the release was not one of them. And when we got into court, it was reasonable to assume, based on that direction, prior to the hearing, and then it was confirmed during the hearing, it's in the transcript that the court said, I have questions about three specific paragraphs that I would like answered. And again, confirming that he had read the motion. Now, in answer to a different question that he asked, Mr. Shell did say, your honor, we're talking about a global settlement and releases. And because claims made against the trustee would be made over and against the debtor, these are all transactionally bound together. And we're settling those. How would the claims be made against the debtor? I'm sorry. How would it, how would that work? But there would be a third party action against, by the trustee against the debtor. If, if somebody claimed, I mean, look, there was a $26 million secured obligation that was reduced down to 8.15 millions. That correct. And so you've already given up close to 18 million. And you're saying, the reason I said, the bondholders are upset, obviously, becker filed an objection. If you want the bondholders to vote on the plan, and that's who's actually going to do the voting, then you really have to make sure that they understand what they're voting on. And you're saying, in effect, well, the bankruptcy judge knew he's not the bondholder. And also before confirmation, it came to light what was going on or at least it came to his awareness and prior to the confirmation. He said, I'm not going to go along with this. And you still went forward with confirmation. Well, you're on our, let me also add with respect to the 19 19 motion. That's the one in September of 11. Correct. That was the first motion
. As I said, two things we were trying to accomplish there. One was to put the bondholders on notice of the settlement, which included the monetary terms and the releases and to preview it for the court because under the settlement stipulation, if the release was not going to be included in this settlement. Then it was all undone. Everyone went back to the status quo on tape. That is why we, it was in our interest and in fact we wanted to know. Isn't what happened? You went through with the confirmation ring, right? And so in December? Yes, but you're on a, so in the hearing, if we, we answered judge Frank's questions, we believe he's satisfied. He signs the proposed order as is. He doesn't change it whatsoever. Two months, more than two months later, maybe two, two months in a day, he enters in order to respond to. And that order excises the release. We make a motion for reconsideration of that order. He has a hearing. I'm sorry. He has a hearing. Does he? He doesn't on that. In fact, what happens is he, he tells us to brief the motion for reconsideration on that order. And then confirmation initially postponed. And then together, the return date. You agree to a separate hearing on the release. We ultimately agree to that. But what happened, the way it was set up originally, Your Honor, is that the motion for reconsideration of the Suis Monta Order, which excises the release, was made returnable the same day as a confirmation hearing. It was our understanding that the release issue was going to, is in essence, be dealt with first. When we walked into the courtroom, we really did not know exactly what was going to happen. When we got there, I'm sorry. That sounds like most correct. That would be a fair assessment. But what happens when, so when we get there, it becomes apparent that what's going to happen, the, the solution here is going to be this bifurcation order. And it, you know, it was not a perfect solution
. There's no question about that. But at that point, if this is crucial to you in agreeing to this plan, then you say we can no longer agree to this plan today. I mean, if it's crucial to you, that's what you do. So it obviously wasn't crucial to you. No, Your Honor, it was crucial to us, but, but, and that's exactly why we filed the 19 19 motion back in September, because at that point, I'm talking about now the judge says, right, he says, I'm, this is not part of this plan. I'm not approving it. We'll deal with it separately. And you don't say, well, then the global settlement has a glitch and we can't go through with this. Well, we don't do that, Your Honor, because of the following. At that point, if we had pulled out of the plan, everything would have fallen apart. And, and the hospital, there was, there was, it was almost a certainty that this plan of reorganization would have created on the spot. The holders, we had worked with the holders. We had worked with a new majority of the holders for 18 months, along with a independent financial consultant to come up with this package. They would have ended up getting nothing. These holders that gave up their claim against you for not refiling those UCC forms on time. The period for filing went by. And who were these holders who gave up that pretty good claim? It looks like a pretty good claim. Well, I don't know if it's actually good claim, but it looks like a pretty good claim. And they gave it up. And who were they? Well, no one objected. You Honor, no one can... Was it the president of the hospital? I mean, who were these people who were giving up all these claims? Well, let me address the UCC filing issue, which is a separate issue on the merits of that. Let me tell you this. It seems to me that that's a separate issue. And the bond holders who are going to give up their claim need to know what kind of claim they have. And an assessment of whether it's a pretty good claim or it's a really short claim
. Don't they have to know that about the claim against you for the... Well, they consent to this thing? Frankly, that is on them in this sense. We give them the information. The bond holder notices that went to the holders throughout the course of this bankruptcy had specific information about the claims that had been asserted. And at least to one of the key points of Judge Frank. If this was you giving them information and it was so crucial to you, you noted at least five places in the disclosure statement where you could have put something and you didn't. And for example, the provision called the Bond trustee litigation. Why wasn't it in there? I mean, this was on page on what? The disclosure statement was what? 55 out of 62 or something? It was buried. Your Honor, again, if you were to take... So why wasn't... Just take that one section. The Bond trustee litigation. That price that you tell the person who's reading that, what's going on and how you resolved it, how you settled it. Well, I think in fact that's what it did in the disclosure statement. It outlined the claims and defenses. The Bond trustee litigation. Why wasn't it not in there? And some evaluation or assessment? As part of the settlement, the bond holders are giving a release to the indenture trustee. It was set out in a separate paragraph entirely where it discussed the releases and it was very clear under the section. You may or Judge Frank noted that you could have complied with rule of 3016 and you could have put it conspicuously and you didn't do it. I think your Honor, that the second sentence was given no difference. The second sentence said very clearly the bond trustee that the holders are relinquishing their rights to any norclaims against the bond trustee. Your point is that it's a crucial point and you want to be sure that when you're done, you walk out a court, it's over
. And what the impression given, I think, to the bankruptcy court and to the district court judge's average is that you know you were trying to walk a fine line. Can we just get this through quietly? And what the court is saying is when it's something as crucial as you say, it can't be done quietly. They have to know exactly what's happening. What they're voting on. Your Honor, I... Our... It's set forth in our briefs and I'm happy to walk through it. I noticed that my time is up. I'm happy to stay here. If you're on our time. Okay. If you look at the body of information that was provided to these holders beginning with the 1919 motion, continuing with the disclosure statement. And then within the plan, the release was prominently and clearly set forth. We wanted an answer to that... Well, here's one practical issue. I mean, are you talking about having this in terms of being in italics or bolding? Are you talking about that? The 3016 talks about making it conspicuous in some way. Now, again, that relates to an injunction. But this is the equivalent of injunction because you're saying folks, you ain't going to be able to sue us. Correct. It was with..
. Your Honor, it was in the paragraph relating to the release. I mean, if you... You could... We could debate probably all day, different places that you could put references to releases. We cross-reference that the disclosure statement, cross-references, when it discusses the litigation and it discusses the settlement, it cross-references back to the settlement stipulation, which has in it all the information about the release. And it also has... The release is clearly set forth within the disclosure statement. And it is very clear in that second sentence, which was given no way by the Ida Court, that there's going to be a release. The bondholders are going to give a release to the bond trustee. And all of this... One of the things that I had intended to start with, of course, before the questions, is putting this release in context, because why it was necessary? And why it was important to us, because if we didn't get the release, we are remedy, which we were prepared to do, was go back to the litigation, the trustee litigation, and defend that, and exonerate ourselves. What's the status of the class action... Or the action against the back? The class action right now is we have opposed the motion for a class certification. There are some issues that have come out of that, and Judge Davis has asked me to do some additional discovery, and do some supplemental discovery, on some class action related issues, and we're in the process of doing that. In addition, I can note, and you can take traditional notice of the fact, that no other bondholder has sought to join Mr. Becker as a co-plaintiff. We have.
.. And by the way, in all of these proceedings, Mr. Becker has not put in any evidence. He has never submitted an affidavit. He has never submitted a declaration. The status right now is that you're fighting the definition of the class, so whether it will be a class... Correct. But I'm referring back to these proceedings in the bankruptcy court. There was never any evidentiary showing by Mr. Becker that he was confused, that he didn't understand it. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary, because he filed a motion for reconsideration on the release issue at the outset, and then withdrew it. And then you filed an objection to the plan, and his claims that are set forth in the class action, mirror the claims that were asserted against the trustee in the bankruptcy. I want to ask a couple of factual questions. Was the $8 million distributed to the indentured trustee? Was it distributed to the indentured trustee? Correct. Is the indentured trustee holding it? There is... We have a charging lane on the... The way the indentured works... We don't have a charging lane, but..
. Yes, we have a charging lane on the funds, yes. You're holding them. On the distribution, yes. Okay. And the other thing is, can I go back to my question? You said that there was a group of bondholders who participated in this settlement, and they were all happy with it. And I asked, who were they? Were they... Were they the institutional bondholders? Were they people who were involved in... No, they were not in the hospitals. They were following the bankruptcy proceeding. We invited all bondholders to participate in this process. And a group came forward... Yes, you worked with a group. Right. And a group came forward. Two would be considered institutional holders. One was an individual. Okay. How many bondholders were there in total at the time of the vote on the plan? Well, we don't actually know that, Your Honor, in this sense. We have holders of record. Most investments are held through DTC. So we have.
.. While we may have some individual holders that we're aware of... Just for the record that's the repository process. Yeah. The DTC holds on behalf of institutions, so hold on on behalf of other institutions, so hold on behalf of other individuals. So the total amount... I don't actually know what I can tell you is that of the vote... I think it was 95 holders voted. And the 90 of the 95... Right. And 90 approved. Out of Mr. Becker would say hundreds. Well, we don't know that, Your Honor. And as I'm sure this court knows, the fact that you have people who do not respond, it's very clear that they cannot be considered as rejected. The non-voters do not get that status, otherwise the bankruptcy court would be... Of course, then the question.
.. How did it go full circle? Why didn't they respond? I mean, maybe they didn't understand what was going on. Maybe it wasn't clear enough. Well, I think we... But to make that finding, I think that is... You need evidence in the record of confusion or misunderstanding. We have judges on that. And to the record of the bankruptcy judge saying that he was confused and didn't understand. And he was the... Mr. He used the word disturbed too. I understand that. I think the word... Because I can't point at the 90-19 hearing where something could have been said to him and the chance was just missed. Well, it was not missed because we thought that he didn't understand and we wanted to mislead him. That is certain. We wanted this issue teed up. The point... I guess when he said at the beginning of the opinion, this is a cautionary tale. What he was looking for is we have in a tough situation reached a settlement. The settlement, we take the 26 million and we reduce it down to a secure lean of 8.15. What the indentured trustee gets is a release from the bondholders for doing that. And that's... And for this X, Y and Z reasons, we're here today to ask you approval of this particular 90-19 motion. It's all tough. And I read you some language. The court gives a lot of additional language. Every time Mr. Schell walked up to the line, he's sort of backed away. And you can see why, especially people on my right and left here, were trial-judges, Judge Brace case. And in the case of Sonny's case, you don't want that. You don't want that happening. You want people to let you know exactly what you're... So that later on, this judge for him to come back and say, you know what? I was inadvertent. He used the word inadvertence at one point. And I didn't wasn't aware. I think a lot of guts were in to do that. Because it could have been done much easier and everybody could have been saved a whole lot of angst. You are understood. And as I said, in the context of being there, having known ahead of time that the judge had questions about three paragraphs and said, I am going to.
. I guess when he said at the beginning of the opinion, this is a cautionary tale. What he was looking for is we have in a tough situation reached a settlement. The settlement, we take the 26 million and we reduce it down to a secure lean of 8.15. What the indentured trustee gets is a release from the bondholders for doing that. And that's... And for this X, Y and Z reasons, we're here today to ask you approval of this particular 90-19 motion. It's all tough. And I read you some language. The court gives a lot of additional language. Every time Mr. Schell walked up to the line, he's sort of backed away. And you can see why, especially people on my right and left here, were trial-judges, Judge Brace case. And in the case of Sonny's case, you don't want that. You don't want that happening. You want people to let you know exactly what you're... So that later on, this judge for him to come back and say, you know what? I was inadvertent. He used the word inadvertence at one point. And I didn't wasn't aware. I think a lot of guts were in to do that. Because it could have been done much easier and everybody could have been saved a whole lot of angst. You are understood. And as I said, in the context of being there, having known ahead of time that the judge had questions about three paragraphs and said, I am going to... I am prepared to approve the order in all other respects. That is what was in the record. And he said that that day, it was reasonable to assume that he understood the release paragraphs and that they were integral to the settlement. It was reasonable to assume, presume, not assume, but presume that he would be given all of the facts at the hearing. And not just paragraphs 23g of the 33 paragraphs, motion. How can we not have to tell the boundholders this? Look, here's your choice. Being a general, unsecured creditor and who knows what you're going to get. Or take the eight-mail or take the... who knows what you're going to get there. And you have a lawsuit against us of who knows what happens, but these are the claims in that lawsuit. Or get your eight-million now. I mean, isn't that which is supposed to tell the un holdings? It's actually a little more complicated than that, Your Honor. Because you have the monetary recovery that isn't negotiated, which is being funded by a whole separate bond issue. Otherwise, they were looking at liquidation. The hospital was an extremist. It could not afford to pay the bondholders anything. The challenge had been the debtor's shoes saying the debt is unsecured. We actually get that on the right track. It's a secured... it's now considered a secured debt. They got paid 35% of what they're owed. As part of that settlement, the debtor has to now dismiss that lawsuit in which the debtor is.
.. I am prepared to approve the order in all other respects. That is what was in the record. And he said that that day, it was reasonable to assume that he understood the release paragraphs and that they were integral to the settlement. It was reasonable to assume, presume, not assume, but presume that he would be given all of the facts at the hearing. And not just paragraphs 23g of the 33 paragraphs, motion. How can we not have to tell the boundholders this? Look, here's your choice. Being a general, unsecured creditor and who knows what you're going to get. Or take the eight-mail or take the... who knows what you're going to get there. And you have a lawsuit against us of who knows what happens, but these are the claims in that lawsuit. Or get your eight-million now. I mean, isn't that which is supposed to tell the un holdings? It's actually a little more complicated than that, Your Honor. Because you have the monetary recovery that isn't negotiated, which is being funded by a whole separate bond issue. Otherwise, they were looking at liquidation. The hospital was an extremist. It could not afford to pay the bondholders anything. The challenge had been the debtor's shoes saying the debt is unsecured. We actually get that on the right track. It's a secured... it's now considered a secured debt. They got paid 35% of what they're owed. As part of that settlement, the debtor has to now dismiss that lawsuit in which the debtor is... is challenging the class of its creditors and trying to move some creditors into a different class. That lawsuit has to go away. In addition to that, the debtor needs to be released from its claims of indentification that it owes to the indentured trustee. And in this case, that's extremely... we're not talking about something abstract here. The Bank of New York is suiting these leans... we have a perfection problem with these leans. It's the hospital that didn't tell us that it changed its name. And they are trying to blame us in essence for that issue of that last. Unfortunately, I was part of the looking at when the code was being changed, Article 9. And I said to somebody, this is going to cause a major problem. And because the way I think it used to be was you could be... if you're substantially close. And now it had to be identical. That had to be just right. But that's on the trustee. I mean, having represented a trustee... willing to trust for years, that's on the trustee. You're on respectfully
.. is challenging the class of its creditors and trying to move some creditors into a different class. That lawsuit has to go away. In addition to that, the debtor needs to be released from its claims of indentification that it owes to the indentured trustee. And in this case, that's extremely... we're not talking about something abstract here. The Bank of New York is suiting these leans... we have a perfection problem with these leans. It's the hospital that didn't tell us that it changed its name. And they are trying to blame us in essence for that issue of that last. Unfortunately, I was part of the looking at when the code was being changed, Article 9. And I said to somebody, this is going to cause a major problem. And because the way I think it used to be was you could be... if you're substantially close. And now it had to be identical. That had to be just right. But that's on the trustee. I mean, having represented a trustee... willing to trust for years, that's on the trustee. You're on respectfully. We would disagree under our documents that this was our duty to uncover name change that the debtor... You didn't do it to tell you and they didn't do it. Correct. I understand that. But in the end, that's what the next suit is about. That means I'll relieve you of your liability to the bondholders. I don't know the answer to that. But there was a suit that says you're libeled the bondholders. Because we could have had a secured claim for what? 15 million. And we don't. But the reality is they can have a claim for even more than that. The reality is what can the hospital pay? I mean, that was the bottom line. What is what can the bank pay? That's what? Well, you're on it, but we are not responsible. We do not put them into bankruptcy. And we're not responsible. Your suit is going to say we would have been in a better position in bankruptcy had you done what you're supposed to do. And we have a suit against you. That's what they're saying. I don't know who's going to win that suit, but you have to tell them there's that suit so they can go assess it. Well, and tell them what the claims are in the suit. Well, there are two things here that I really do need to. And I know you've been very generous, but I do want to bring this full circle. The indentification claim, if I can finish this piece of it, the indenture trustee has the right to be indentified by the debtor. The debtor cannot get out of bankruptcy unless back claim is released. In a situation like this where the debtor is claiming that it changed its name, it did not inform the bank of the name change. And now it's trying to use that as an excuse to declare the debt as unsecured
. We would disagree under our documents that this was our duty to uncover name change that the debtor... You didn't do it to tell you and they didn't do it. Correct. I understand that. But in the end, that's what the next suit is about. That means I'll relieve you of your liability to the bondholders. I don't know the answer to that. But there was a suit that says you're libeled the bondholders. Because we could have had a secured claim for what? 15 million. And we don't. But the reality is they can have a claim for even more than that. The reality is what can the hospital pay? I mean, that was the bottom line. What is what can the bank pay? That's what? Well, you're on it, but we are not responsible. We do not put them into bankruptcy. And we're not responsible. Your suit is going to say we would have been in a better position in bankruptcy had you done what you're supposed to do. And we have a suit against you. That's what they're saying. I don't know who's going to win that suit, but you have to tell them there's that suit so they can go assess it. Well, and tell them what the claims are in the suit. Well, there are two things here that I really do need to. And I know you've been very generous, but I do want to bring this full circle. The indentification claim, if I can finish this piece of it, the indenture trustee has the right to be indentified by the debtor. The debtor cannot get out of bankruptcy unless back claim is released. In a situation like this where the debtor is claiming that it changed its name, it did not inform the bank of the name change. And now it's trying to use that as an excuse to declare the debt as unsecured. It gets released from it. It settles up with the bondholders, correct? And it's going to get it released from the bank because it has to get out of bankruptcy and it's getting released from the holders. To fill that in, the bank has to get the release from the holders because we have the right to now, assuming, I'm sorry, forget the bankruptcy for a moment. If this were happening outside of the bankruptcy, we would have the right to be indentified by the debtor, given these set of facts. And now we're giving that up because the debtor has to be removed from, from, get out of bankruptcy. I heard giving that up. You read those indemnification provisions. I must say, I don't read them the same. I think there's an issue there as to who ends up with the money at the end. If you don't tell anybody what's happening, how can they assess? Well, I don't think there's a question as who ends up with the money at the end. How can they assess how to vote? How can they assess how to vote? How to vote with respect to the plan? Well, I don't think there's anything in the bankruptcy law or the code that requires the indenture trustee to lay out what the claims may be. That's why all we're talking about here is the release that you're getting as part of this settlement. They have to know what they're releasing. And the background of the litigation, the trustee litigation, what the claims and defenses were, what the debtor said about the claims and defenses. All of that was in the disclosure statement. They had access to the bankruptcy file. They are told in the notices to absolutely contact and seek advice from the accountants and lawyers. And that's in fact what Mr. Becker did. I mean, this is, there is nothing in the code that would suggest or require the indenture trustee in this circumstance. I've not seen it in any other place where someone being released, getting the benefit of a release, is going to outline what the claims might be against it and what the value of those claims might be. Which is what exactly... You are the indenture trustee and these are the bondholders. Correct. You may not have quote a fiduciary duty. But when you're dealing with your claims, these are the people who are being released
. It gets released from it. It settles up with the bondholders, correct? And it's going to get it released from the bank because it has to get out of bankruptcy and it's getting released from the holders. To fill that in, the bank has to get the release from the holders because we have the right to now, assuming, I'm sorry, forget the bankruptcy for a moment. If this were happening outside of the bankruptcy, we would have the right to be indentified by the debtor, given these set of facts. And now we're giving that up because the debtor has to be removed from, from, get out of bankruptcy. I heard giving that up. You read those indemnification provisions. I must say, I don't read them the same. I think there's an issue there as to who ends up with the money at the end. If you don't tell anybody what's happening, how can they assess? Well, I don't think there's a question as who ends up with the money at the end. How can they assess how to vote? How can they assess how to vote? How to vote with respect to the plan? Well, I don't think there's anything in the bankruptcy law or the code that requires the indenture trustee to lay out what the claims may be. That's why all we're talking about here is the release that you're getting as part of this settlement. They have to know what they're releasing. And the background of the litigation, the trustee litigation, what the claims and defenses were, what the debtor said about the claims and defenses. All of that was in the disclosure statement. They had access to the bankruptcy file. They are told in the notices to absolutely contact and seek advice from the accountants and lawyers. And that's in fact what Mr. Becker did. I mean, this is, there is nothing in the code that would suggest or require the indenture trustee in this circumstance. I've not seen it in any other place where someone being released, getting the benefit of a release, is going to outline what the claims might be against it and what the value of those claims might be. Which is what exactly... You are the indenture trustee and these are the bondholders. Correct. You may not have quote a fiduciary duty. But when you're dealing with your claims, these are the people who are being released. I mean, you have some obligation to let them know what's being released. Respectively that that duty does not exist. I mean, maybe there's no third circuit law on it. I think there's second circuit law on it. When you're dealing with not outsiders, but the very people you're holding, the bonds for. You have a different relationship. You're saying to these people, you're not going to sue me and I think you've got to sue that very clearly. You honor again, respectfully, if you look at the indenture, there's nothing in the indenture which is the operative document for us. It tells us what we're supposed to do and if there's nothing in it that would require us to disclose what claims may be against. In fact, Judge Frank actually says there's always a duty of good faith. You honor, we've not there. There has not been another occasion. I've worked with indenture trustees for 30 years. I've not seen the situation where an indenture trustee has been required to set for a roadmap to explain what the claims and defenses would be and what the value of those claims might be. That is, the bondholders have the information they can seek independent counsel and make that decision. The bondholder is not an advisor. The bondholder simply acts pursuant to contractual duties and it has absolutely no obligation to do. You don't mean the bondholder, you mean the indenture trustee? I'm sorry, yes, I respect. What we've done, we've given you over 25 minutes. I know. So what we'll do is I would suggest that unless we ask a question of Mr. Barnes that you would like to deal with, I don't necessarily see the need for a bottle. But if there's something that he says that you think needs to be rebutted, then we'll get you back on the bottle. All right, thank you. Okay. Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Aaron
. I mean, you have some obligation to let them know what's being released. Respectively that that duty does not exist. I mean, maybe there's no third circuit law on it. I think there's second circuit law on it. When you're dealing with not outsiders, but the very people you're holding, the bonds for. You have a different relationship. You're saying to these people, you're not going to sue me and I think you've got to sue that very clearly. You honor again, respectfully, if you look at the indenture, there's nothing in the indenture which is the operative document for us. It tells us what we're supposed to do and if there's nothing in it that would require us to disclose what claims may be against. In fact, Judge Frank actually says there's always a duty of good faith. You honor, we've not there. There has not been another occasion. I've worked with indenture trustees for 30 years. I've not seen the situation where an indenture trustee has been required to set for a roadmap to explain what the claims and defenses would be and what the value of those claims might be. That is, the bondholders have the information they can seek independent counsel and make that decision. The bondholder is not an advisor. The bondholder simply acts pursuant to contractual duties and it has absolutely no obligation to do. You don't mean the bondholder, you mean the indenture trustee? I'm sorry, yes, I respect. What we've done, we've given you over 25 minutes. I know. So what we'll do is I would suggest that unless we ask a question of Mr. Barnes that you would like to deal with, I don't necessarily see the need for a bottle. But if there's something that he says that you think needs to be rebutted, then we'll get you back on the bottle. All right, thank you. Okay. Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Aaron. Alex Barnes from the law firm of over my Redmond Maxwell and people. I have one question for you. Okay. Mr. Becker filed an objection to the 1919 hearing and then the matter, the order was entered granting the motion, the 1919 motion. There was a, I guess a motion for reconsideration. What? Is that right? No, that's not correct. I think that's a question. Mr. Becker became aware of the situation regarding these purported releases after the 1919 motion was entered. So he did not file an objection to the 1919 motion. He wasn't aware of the, he wasn't aware of the 1919 motion and the purport. So then he filed in late September of 2011, what? He filed the most free consideration of the approval of the 1919 motion. I had the predicate wrong. And then what happened? He withdrew it on October 21st. Yes, they're. Okay. Why so? Because he was concerned about the inclusion in the settlement order or the perception possibly that there could be a third party release contained. That's why the 1919 objection, right? Well, he filed, why did he withdrew it on the understanding that he could raise it later? Correct. That's why the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century
. Alex Barnes from the law firm of over my Redmond Maxwell and people. I have one question for you. Okay. Mr. Becker filed an objection to the 1919 hearing and then the matter, the order was entered granting the motion, the 1919 motion. There was a, I guess a motion for reconsideration. What? Is that right? No, that's not correct. I think that's a question. Mr. Becker became aware of the situation regarding these purported releases after the 1919 motion was entered. So he did not file an objection to the 1919 motion. He wasn't aware of the, he wasn't aware of the 1919 motion and the purport. So then he filed in late September of 2011, what? He filed the most free consideration of the approval of the 1919 motion. I had the predicate wrong. And then what happened? He withdrew it on October 21st. Yes, they're. Okay. Why so? Because he was concerned about the inclusion in the settlement order or the perception possibly that there could be a third party release contained. That's why the 1919 objection, right? Well, he filed, why did he withdrew it on the understanding that he could raise it later? Correct. That's why the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. Did he object to the plan? He did object to the plan. And unfortunately, the motion to reconsideration was withdrawn prior to Judge Frank being able to review it. And had he reviewed it, he would have seen the objection that in part was based on the impermissible inclusion of the third party release. And that would have highlighted that critical issue for him. And obviously would have raised a host of concerns about the inadequate level of disclosure that had happened so far and connects the first with the 1919 motion. And then as your honor had commented, the colloquy that he had at the hearing where he raised certain questions about why are there... I've been through that. Yes, okay. Is there anything you want to say? The points that your honor had made, I think amplify and echo what we have raised. And I'm pretty sure the court doesn't have any further questions from me. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Anything you want to respond to, a connection with the becker matter? Please, Cesar. Just that. Just one brief thing. The motion for reconsideration, just so it's clear from the record that was filed after the 1919 motion. That was September 29th. Correct. And we did not have an operation. The approval was of September 14th, the order was... Correct. Then it was filed right thereafter. The circumstances surrounding that withdrawal of the motion for reconsideration is what Judge Davis has asked us to look further into
. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. And then what happened was that the 19th century was the 19th century. Did he object to the plan? He did object to the plan. And unfortunately, the motion to reconsideration was withdrawn prior to Judge Frank being able to review it. And had he reviewed it, he would have seen the objection that in part was based on the impermissible inclusion of the third party release. And that would have highlighted that critical issue for him. And obviously would have raised a host of concerns about the inadequate level of disclosure that had happened so far and connects the first with the 1919 motion. And then as your honor had commented, the colloquy that he had at the hearing where he raised certain questions about why are there... I've been through that. Yes, okay. Is there anything you want to say? The points that your honor had made, I think amplify and echo what we have raised. And I'm pretty sure the court doesn't have any further questions from me. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Anything you want to respond to, a connection with the becker matter? Please, Cesar. Just that. Just one brief thing. The motion for reconsideration, just so it's clear from the record that was filed after the 1919 motion. That was September 29th. Correct. And we did not have an operation. The approval was of September 14th, the order was... Correct. Then it was filed right thereafter. The circumstances surrounding that withdrawal of the motion for reconsideration is what Judge Davis has asked us to look further into. We were not given an opportunity to respond to that motion and deal with the issue at that time. It was withdrawn and then the objection preserved without any involvement from the indentured trustee. We objected to that because we wanted to deal with it at that point. I just want to... I mean, sometimes life's unfair. Well... We draw the motion. There are very few judges who want to leave to a motion if it's been withdrawn. I speak only for myself. Usually you just go. No, I'm not suggesting that the court should have... I'm not suggesting that the court should have done anything. I just want to make clear procedurally what happened that we did not have an opportunity at that point. That was the point at which frankly to deal with this issue on the release. And we did not have an opportunity to do that. We did not agree that it had been... That issue had been preserved for later objection. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you very much. Thank you to Council for some tough questions and you handled them as well as possibly you could
. Take the matter under advisement and call our third case this morning. Cox V Horn at all, number 13-2982. Mr. Lev and Ms. Lorber