[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
The next case on calendar for argument is Homesite Holdings versus Scott Mueller.

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
Good morning, counsel.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
Good morning, your honors, and may it please the court. Todd Curry representing the appellants, Homesite Holdings, and Michael Cartwright.

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
I will attempt to preserve five minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
This case raises fundamental questions about what sort of valuation evidence is necessary to support a bankruptcy sale of an asset. It also raises important questions about what sort of misconduct will trigger application of Rule 60B3 relief and also whether that conduct will affect the good faith finding under Bankruptcy Code Section 363M.

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
We are asking that the court grant the summary judgment, reverse the sale, or alternatively, instead of reversing the sale, remand to determine alternative remedies to reversing the sale.

[00:01:36] Speaker 02:
In connection with a settlement and a sale of an asset, the case law indicates that standard must be met for both. That is, the standard must be met for the sale of an asset and also the standard for approving a settlement.

[00:01:49] Speaker 02:
With respect to a sale, the moving party must show the optimal value is being provided or given by the purchaser under all of the circumstances. In this case, we had a sale by a bankruptcy trustee, and no evidence was submitted regarding the value of the property.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
Well, counsel, didn't the trustee try to sell the land unsuccessfully before?

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
That's what the trustee said. We hadn't, Your Honor, but no detail was given. For example, was the property listed on a listing service? Was the property advertised? If so, for how long? If so, for what price?

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
I mean, as I understand it, this land has been mired in.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
litigation and litigation risk and possible continuing landslide issues. And so why was the bankruptcy court wrong to credit the evidence that the value of the land was substantially diminished because of all these circumstances at the same time?

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
Well, I think, Your Honor, that the bankruptcy court was entitled to consider things like that in terms of establishing the value. But the problem is the trustee never provided any evidence as to what the effect was specifically on the value. So, for example, we could say, well, we might expect a litigation over a landslide would affect the value. But, okay, so what was the value? Or do we have a range of values? The bankruptcy trustee just came in and said, without support, the property is essentially worthless. He admitted that he had marketed the property through a broker.

[00:03:17] Speaker 02:
We heard nothing from the broker whatsoever. How long was the property marketed? Were there any potential buyers? Did buyers come in and say, you know, that litigation's a problem for me? We never heard from the broker with regard to that, and we never heard any detail from the trustee either. Even on reply on his sale motion, where we might expect a last-ditch effort by the trustee to say, okay, the opposition says we didn't talk about the marketing. Well, here, in fact, is what we did to market the property. Here's how long we tried. Or was the property marketed before the bankruptcy, for example?

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
That could be some evidence of value if the property was marketed for a period of time. And in fact, in bankruptcy court, its exposure to the market often is the gold standard, if you will, even more important than an appraisal, because that says, okay, the market has spoken. And this is what we hear from bankruptcy judges frequently is, well, there was marketed, the property was marketed, say, for six months at various prices. We lowered the price multiple times, still no offers. Or the We received an offer, let's say, for a million dollars.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
Okay, well, the market's spoken with respect to that. But in this case, we have other factors that override that. So, for example, a claim is being compromised. So perhaps a million dollars from an outside buyer is not as good as, in this case, $338,000, I think was the cash component, combined with waiver of claims. That's the problem here is we don't have anything to measure against that. What we have, we have the cash offer.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
Did you have an opportunity through discovery or other ways to pose those questions to the trustee about the marketing and the use of the broker?

[00:04:57] Speaker 02:
We did not. The trustee brought his motion for sale, and this is what the evidence was.

[00:05:05] Speaker 01:
Was that something that you requested the court to undertake? Was some discovery relevant to the marketing of the property or?

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
I don't believe we actually asked for that. I think we stood on the inadequacy of the support for the motion.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
So then why come up on appeal and say, well, this information wasn't there when it wasn't posed to the trustee at the time?

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
Because it is the trustee's burden of proof, Your Honor, to establish that the optimal value is being obtained under the circumstances. So if the trustee doesn't meet his prima facie case, which is our position, he did not submit evidence of value. In the face of the owner or the principal of the owner homesite, came in and said he believed the property was worth approximately $3.8 million. So, again, the trustee does have the burden of proof on this motion, and he didn't meet that burden of proof.

[00:05:51] Speaker 02:
But to answer your Honor's question, we did not specifically request discovery, Judge Sanchez. Okay.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
So we have the trustee's unsupported hearsay statement. And is this enough? Is this enough? And we submit that it's not, and that this approach, it undermines the bankruptcy system. And it undermines the confidence in the bankruptcy system, the bankruptcy court, and the trustee system as well. And so really the harm goes beyond just this case. It creates a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the deck is stacked, that it doesn't matter that the evidence isn't there.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
If the trustee asks for it, and again, rightly or wrongfully, it can create the perception in the public that there's a rubber stamp. And the courts even talk about this. I think it's the Fitzgerald case that we cited. is the court must not simply rubber stamp a trustee's motion to sell an asset. And, again, this sort of thing, we need to have confidence in our courts and our institutions and the bankruptcy system as a whole. And this approach taken in this case undermines that confidence.

[00:06:58] Speaker 00:
Counsel, did you present evidence that the property, in your view, was worth $3.8 million?

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
The evidence that we supported, Judge Tung, was that it was the owner's property opinion of value, which is competent, admissible evidence. It's Mr. Cartwright's declaration. He is the sole owner principle of home site holding. So that was the evidence on our side, $3.8 million.

[00:07:21] Speaker 00:
Did he get an appraisal? It was just a say-so?

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
No, he did not obtain an appraisal. Of course, neither did the trustee. And even if the trustee had come in and opined, I don't think the trustee was qualified. He's not an owner, but the trustee didn't even do that. The trustee didn't even offer an opinion, just said, well, I think it's worthless. Again, without support, how long was it marketed? At what price or prices? Was there a declining price offering and no takers? Something like that. That's what we typically expect to see in a bankruptcy case like this. And we didn't see it here.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
But, you know, as I understand it, the bankruptcy was declared in 2020. The sale occurred in 2024.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
In all those, you have different parties. Someone asserts a $2.4 million secured claim. Another one, $1.2 million. There's just claims everywhere, and no buyer has emerged in those four years.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
So it seems understandable that the bankruptcy court would find that there's no value or very little value to the land in light of all the swirl of circumstances here.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
Well, Judge Sanchez, that is one of the key points here is if the property had been shown to have been marketed during that period of time, we try, for example, the trustee comes in and says, we listed it at this price and that price. We listed it with an MLS service. We advertised the property. What efforts were undertaken during, admittedly, a few-year period?

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
Then I think the bankruptcy court perhaps would have been justified to conclude as it did. But that is what's missing here. And I think that, again, undermines our bankruptcy process. That's what's supposed to happen.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you to switch gears? Why do you think the bankruptcy court erred in denying summary judgment?

[00:09:07] Speaker 02:
I think the key point, Your Honor, with respect to summary judgment was that the – and that has to do with the litigation by SMDLT2 as to damages for the alleged landslide on the homesite property.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
There was two paths. It could have been a permanent nuisance, in which case three years statute of limitation had long since passed. The alternative is the continuing nuisance. And that was the one that the bankruptcy court went with. The problem with that approach is that the plaintiff, in this case, SMDL slash T2, had the burden to show what damages had occurred within the last three years, because it's very clear under California law that in a continuing nuisance case, you can only reach back three years for recovery of damages.

[00:09:56] Speaker 02:
There was no evidence whatsoever, zero.

[00:09:58] Speaker 01:
But there was also potential liability for failure to remediate a dangerous condition.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
So even if you set aside nuisance, you have what seems to be a reasonable dispute between both sides as to whether there was an ongoing dangerous condition and if the owner needed to remediate with the wall or other ways. It just seems like there were many different views on that question as well.

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
Well, I don't believe there was a request for an abatement of a nuisance in this particular case. It wasn't, for example, a governmental action or seeking a mandatory injunction of some sort. My recollection is this was a pure damages case. And that is the way that the plaintiff, SMDL T2, framed their case. As a result, damages is what they could theoretically recover. And because they showed no damages in the prior three years, probably because the landslide, the only alleged landslide happened way back in 2005, a very long time ago, but they didn't submit any evidence whatsoever or even attempt to quantify any damages in that last three years.

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
And that's why the bankruptcy court should have granted summary judgment on this claim. And that then would spill over into the settlement analysis because what we have to look at in the settlement analysis is the merits of the litigation, what's going to have to be litigated further, et cetera.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
and the litigation should have been over right then and there as a result of summary judgment and lack of any evidence. And again, the case had been pending for three years, and after three years, they still had no evidence of damages in the prior three years.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
So you think it was undisputable that Homesite was not responsible for any kind of remediation requirements, that there's no dispute as to that?

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
I think that I would say that that – could be disputed as to whether home site's responsible. The problem is, and this is the problem I think in any statute of limitations case, is even if somebody has a meritorious claim, if you're outside the statute, the law doesn't allow you to recover, even if you have a good claim. And that's, I think, the real crux of it.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
But if that landslide risk continues to exist, wouldn't that obligation still be live?

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
In a case that sought damages, and the damages were not so much for the risk, but the damages were, it was the lack of support. And so what they tried to show was, here's what our damages are, here's what the remediation costs would be. And the problem is they couldn't show damages or quantify those within the three years before they filed suit. They'd have to show something like there was additional slippage or there was something to that effect, and they didn't show that.

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
Didn't they show something about debris on top of one of the retaining walls and other things that might suggest additional slippage or additional movement, that the landslide was still active, in other words.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
I think there was an allegation to that effect. The problem is that relates to the uphill property, which was their property. And that's what they never quantified or showed was that something that happening down below, they said, well, the wall is risky. It doesn't have permits. That may all be true. But they didn't show that, in fact, the wall itself had failed.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
Well, I mean, they didn't show it because this thing was settled. I mean, a trial wasn't established. Not having shown it doesn't mean that there's a lack of a tribal issue there.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
Well, because they didn't show.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
In other words, I mean, I think I take your point that it seems as if they had shown enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment, even if something hadn't been definitively established through trial.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
Well, Discovery had closed at this point in time, so they had multiple years to gather their evidence. And so that's why we brought the summary judgment motion late in the day, because that gave them plenty of time to gather their evidence. And in the end, they didn't show evidence of damage or quantifiable damage within that three-year period. And that's what we say barred their continuing nuisance claim.

[00:14:03] Speaker 00:
Counsel, you had remarked earlier that the summary judgment issue, the district court's purported error there spills over to the settlement agreement analysis. I would just ask the converse here. If we find that the district court correctly denied summary judgment here, wasn't their settlement agreement analysis then proper?

[00:14:30] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure that that completely disposes of it. but it does make it more supportable. But we still go back to the problem of the lack of evidence of the fair market value of the property. So again, the fact of a landslide or the question, a question of fact with respect to the landslide certainly could affect the value, but the trustee made no effort to show what the value of the property was either with or without the landslide. And that was the fundamental problem with approving the sale itself. Aside from the settlement, which is a separate issue, SAIL ITSELF WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF THAT EVIDENCE.

[00:15:07] Speaker 02:
IT LOOKS LIKE I HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS. I'D LIKE TO RESERVE THIS. ALL RIGHT.

[00:15:09] Speaker 03:
THANK YOU, COUNCIL. WE'LL GIVE YOU A MINUTE OR TWO FOR REBUTTAL.

[00:15:18] Speaker 04:
GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONORS. MICHAEL SUKPOVIAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SMBL AND T2.

[00:15:24] Speaker 04:
THIS APPEAL SEEKS TO UNWIND A CAREFULLY NEGOTIATED GLOBAL SETTLEMENT OF YEARS OF CONTENTIOUS LITIGATION involving unstable landslide property. The property has a documented history of landslides, is subject to City of Los Angeles remediation orders, and poses an ongoing risk to the uphill homes owned by my clients, SMDL and T2. The bankruptcy court concluded that the settlement was a sound exercise of the trustee's business judgment, and ABAP previously affirmed the order approving the settlement. We respectfully urge affirmance.

[00:15:56] Speaker 04:
The roadmap I'd like to present is, first, I'd like to discuss why the appeals are moot under Section 363M.

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
Second, why the settlement was properly approved under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. And third, why summary judgment was correctly denied and appellant's reconsideration motion was properly refused.

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
First, statutory moot. This applies here, and Judge Tung touched on that.

[00:16:26] Speaker 04:
IF THIS COURT DETERMINES THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS CORRECTLY DENIED, THEN SECTION 363M APPLIES AND STATUTORY MOVEMENTS PREVENTS FROM THIS COURT ANALYZING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IN THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL IN THEIR DECISION THEY DISCUSS THIS. THEY ANALYZE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

[00:16:55] Speaker 04:
Determined that the court reasonably made, the bankruptcy court reasonably made explicit findings that S&DL and T2 were good faith purchasers after notice in the hearing. And here, appellate home site did not obtain a stay and the sale closed. Under Section 363M, the court cannot modify or set aside a good faith purchaser when no stay was obtained.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
The record supports the bankruptcy court's determination.

[00:17:23] Speaker 04:
The court held a notice hearing considering an overbid and found that SMTL and T2's litigation was brought in good faith.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
Appellants argue that SMTL and T2 sabotage the sale process by filing claims designed to somehow reduce the value of the property or scare potential buyers away. And the bankruptcy court determined that there were many issues of disputed fact, including the nature of the landslide, the causation, and who is liable for damages.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
Counsel, I'd like to return to your argument about mootness. It's a jurisdictional argument you're making?

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
I'm not making a jurisdictional argument. I'm making an argument that's a limitation on remedies, that this court can consider the issue.

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
Because in your brief, you had invoked a jurisdictional bar.

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
Oh, yes, Your Honor. And I think it's better stated as this court can consider the THE APPLICABILITY OR PROPER FINDING OF SECTION 363M, BUT SECTION 363M WOULD STILL LIMIT THE REMEDIES THAT COULD BE APPLIED SUCH AS THE SALE COULD NOT, IF THERE'S A GOOD FINDING, THE SALE COULD NOT BE REVERSED OR AMENDED, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT APPELLANTS ARE ASKING FOR.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
NEW SPEAKER I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A SUPREME COURT CASE ON POINT FROM 2023 THAT SAYS 363M IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL PART.

[00:18:46] Speaker 04:
NEW SPEAKER YES, YOUR HONOR.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
The Bankruptcy Court correctly found that SMDL and T2's claims were not used to impair the trustee's ability to have a sale or to leverage an unfair price.

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
And the Bankruptcy Court determined that the motion for summary judgment raised serious issues that would have to be decided at trial, and that would require expensive experts by both sides. The estate had no money and was administratively insolvent. and it was a dangerous piece of property. Thus, the court reasonably concluded that the settlement agreement was the most effective path forward.

[00:19:31] Speaker 01:
Council, how do you respond to opposing council's arguments about the statute of limitations and no evidence of damages from the landslide within the three-year period?

[00:19:41] Speaker 04:
We disagree with that, Your Honor. There is evidence of damages, S&D L&T 2.0.

[00:19:48] Speaker 04:
both in their proof of claim, claim damages arising from the failure to be able to repair damage to their homes caused by the landslide. And this was a central issue in the case is who was responsible for the landslide clause. But we did file proofs of claims and each one was worth, I think, $1.7 million. So there is evidence of damages that the court had was presented to the court. And appellants never took any discovery on the question of the scope of those damages.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
I mean, there's a claim for damages, but was there any evidence presented to support that claim?

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
I don't recall if there was any evidence presented specifically as to the damage to the property itself. There was certainly evidence submitted as to the cost of the repair.

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
And there was dispute about was or not that was reasonable.

[00:20:51] Speaker 01:
Was there a tribal dispute as to a continuing nuisance? Are there different views as to whether the nuisance is continuing?

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor. Our position was and remains that the unfinished retaining walls that were not approved by the city are a dangerous element on the parcels, undeveloped parcels. And also in 2023, which is a particularly wet winter, there was further movement of the hill and it caused debris to spill onto, it pushed through a lower retaining wall and causing debris to spill onto the road below.

[00:21:33] Speaker 04:
Even if the court determines that section 363M does not apply, equitable mootness still still weighs heavily in favor of SMDL and T2.

[00:21:47] Speaker 04:
All the proceeds have already been distributed to lien holders and to pay administrative expenses, including counsel for the trustee.

[00:21:55] Speaker 04:
My clients, SMDL and T2, have waived their claims and reimbursement rights under a separate loan provided to the estate as part of the settlement. And the settlement also resolved to dismiss with prejudice a separate adversary proceeding involving Mr. Framian, whose counsel is here, And reversal would require reopening that litigation with Mr. Aframian. And Mr. Aframian was paid approximately $150,000 to resolve his lien two years ago.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
So that would be very difficult to have that money returned. And also, if Mr. Aframian's lien was reinstated, it would effectively put a $2.4 million lien back on the property and create a tremendous blocking position. The property could not be sold unless Mr. Fromian compromises his lien or is paid in full. Mr. Fromian testified in a declaration in support of the sale that he would not reduce the value of his lien for Mr. Cartwright, the principal of Homesite Holdings, because of ongoing litigation that the parties have had, and Mr. Cartwright had not abided by a prior settlement agreement.

[00:23:12] Speaker 04:
So the only option was for Mr. Aframian to compromise his lien, which he did as part of the settlement, and he was paid $150,000 to compromise a $1.2 million lien, or to pay Mr. Aframian in full.

[00:23:27] Speaker 04:
If this court were to set aside the settlement, then Mr. Aframian would need to be paid $2.4 million in whole for the property be sold, or the litigation with his lien would need to continue. So this settlement and sale isn't only about my clients, SMDL and T2, but it also involves other creditors.

[00:23:48] Speaker 00:
Counsel, can you respond to the argument made by opposing counsel that the bankruptcy court really just rubber-stamped the trustee's assessment of the property value? It was asserted to be $3.8 million. The trustee found that the value of the property was one-tenth of that.

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
I disagree with that, Your Honor. In the bankruptcy court's order approving the settlement and sale agreement, the court explicitly found that there was a tribal issue of fact that the value was worth somewhere between zero or less than zero and $3.8 million, which is what HomeSite alleged. The bankruptcy court determined that to determine what the actual value was, would require a significant amount of resources and the estate had no money to continue the litigation.

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
The estate actually needed a $150,000 loan from my client just so that it could litigate reduction of another significant lien on a property. If you'll excuse me, I just said a word.

[00:25:04] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
I think I answered your question, but if you... I mean, how did the trustee arrive at that $338,000 number? Did he pluck it out of thin air? How did he arrive at that actual figure?

[00:25:18] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor. It was a heavily negotiated settlement agreement. There were no other buyers interested in the property. This is coastal real estate in the Pacific Palisades. This is not the type of property that just flies under the radar. People were aware that this had a landslide condition, and it was also near vertical in points. The trustee sought to sell the property. Through negotiations, my client, the uphill landowners, determined that it was unbuildable, and the only value to them was just to be able to purchase it, to complete the repair, to stabilize the hillside, which would stabilize their very expensive homes uphill.

[00:26:01] Speaker 04:
So with only...

[00:26:03] Speaker 04:
one person having a genuine interest in this property, it became clear that there wasn't going to be any type of significant payday for the estate. And it then started, the negotiations then started looking at reducing the liens because the liens are in a blocking position and those liens were reduced and we were able to purchase the property through the sale. The only other party interested in the property was Mr. Cartwright.

[00:26:34] Speaker 04:
And he had the most knowledge about the property.

[00:26:38] Speaker 04:
He's a principal of Homesite Holdings. And even Mr. Cartwright, he offered an overbid and the value was de minimis. It was approximately $50,000 in cash over the amount that SMDL and T2 paid. So there's a lot of discussion about the property is worth $3.8 million, but no party ever came near that amount. And The best evidence of the value of the property is what Mr. Cartwright's overbid was. And that wasn't even enough to satisfy the $1.2 million lien on the property that Mr. Aframian has.

[00:27:14] Speaker 04:
The remediation costs are in dispute, but upwards of $2.7 million. It's just not a practical piece of property for someone to buy without a very unique need for it. And that happened to be my client's.

[00:27:40] Speaker 04:
Unless the court has further questions, I don't think I have anything to add.

[00:27:43] Speaker 03:
It appears not, counsel. Thank you.

[00:27:45] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:27:46] Speaker 03:
Let's have two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:27:53] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor. On this last issue about the overbid, I understand the argument is, well, gee, if Mr. Cartwright thought the property was worth 3.8, why did he make a low overbid? The overbid itself was expressly contingent on if the court finds that the sale is otherwise acceptable. So in other words, it's not admitting that this is the value, but the attempt was to try to outbid the other side. So I think it really misconstrues the nature of this overbid to say, well, your overbid was low, so the property was worth nothing.

[00:28:26] Speaker 02:
But I'd like to address my colleague's point about the bankruptcy court's finding that the property is worth zero – had a range of values. It could be worth zero or less than zero. This loops back to the issue of the Rule 60B3 misconduct because SMDLT2 came in and we accidentally discovered that they had filed something with the California Coastal Commission, that being the October application. This application was concealed in discovery.

[00:28:56] Speaker 02:
It was actually even concealed from the bankruptcy court because they submitted to the court a September application that suggested they were doing a two-wall support system, when in fact, they had abandoned that system. Why does that matter? Completely different system, completely different remedial cost. They told the bankruptcy court that the cost to remediate this property based on, I think it was a 2018 or a 2019 estimates, was somewhere around $3 to $3.8 million. And the bankruptcy court credited that and mentioned it in its order.

[00:29:30] Speaker 02:
Come to find out that two-walled system had been completely abandoned, this was never disclosed in discovery, and our discovery targeted this type of issue, and they're even telling the bankruptcy court that they're still relying on the three to $3.8 million estimate when in fact they weren't. That raises the issue of the 60 relief and why my client should have a chance to present its case. It was prevented from presenting its case fairly, and that's the essence of 60B3. It's a gatekeeper type of statute.

[00:30:02] Speaker 02:
We don't have to show different result would obtain. We just have to show that we were blocked from presenting our case.

[00:30:08] Speaker 03:
All right, counsel. Thank you. We understand your argument.

[00:30:10] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:30:11] Speaker 03:
Thank you to both counsel for your helpful arguments. The case just argued is submitted for decision by the court. The next