[00:00:01] Speaker 02:
Next we have NRA hero nutritionals.

[00:00:05] Speaker 02:
Michael check in appearing for appellant.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
Todd Ringstadt appearing for appellee.

[00:00:20] Speaker 03:
Come on up Mr. check in.

[00:00:23] Speaker 03:
Would you like to reserve some time for rebuttal?

[00:00:26] Speaker 04:
if possible i'm not sure if i can get through everything but i'll watch the clock.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
Do you have a target for what you want to reserve?

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
Three minutes.

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
Alright, go ahead please.

[00:00:35] Speaker 04:
Thank you and good morning.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
I'm Michael Checkian on behalf of the appellant and creditor in the hero nutritionals case, Jennifer Hodges.

[00:00:45] Speaker 04:
The issue, the primary issue today is over the timeliness of the amended claim 41.

[00:00:52] Speaker 04:
I just wanted to briefly point out that

[00:00:56] Speaker 04:
The issue of claim timeliness is subject to de novo review.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
It's jurisdictional per N. Ray Wilkins 587 BR 97 at page 100.

[00:01:07] Speaker 04:
That's a Ninth Circuit.

[00:01:09] Speaker 00:
To start, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think you conceded pretty quickly that the claim was untimely.

[00:01:17] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:01:17] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:01:17] Speaker 00:
So really we're talking about excusable neglect and informal proof of claim.

[00:01:22] Speaker 04:
With one more twist I want to point out, so hopefully you have something to, you won't fall asleep during this argument.

[00:01:32] Speaker 04:
We're pretty good at staying awake.

[00:01:35] Speaker 04:
So here we have the original claim filed on August 15, 2023, which should be considered timely not only because of

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
the claims bar date being listed as that same date, August 15, 2023.

[00:01:51] Speaker 03:
When you say listed, you're referring to the header on the ECF docket sheet?

[00:01:55] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:01:55] Speaker 03:
But not by the orders in the case?

[00:01:58] Speaker 03:
Correct, but wait, there's more.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
But there's a difference.

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
I want to say, you think it's reasonable to rely on the CMECF header rather than the orders?

[00:02:11] Speaker 04:
Yes and no.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
I mean, I've admitted on the record that in a perfect world, I would have filed it by that June 2023 date.

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
But I guess I got fooled by looking at those headers on the claims docket and the main docket and readjusted my deadlines to my, you know,

[00:02:40] Speaker 00:
I thought that the second deadline was also for administrative expenses in the chapter 11 prior to conversion for administrative expenses.

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
The administrative claims deadline was also in the order August 15, 2023, the same day that the original date the claim was filed.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
But this wasn't an administrative expense.

[00:03:00] Speaker 04:
Maybe.

[00:03:00] Speaker 04:
Here's why.

[00:03:06] Speaker 04:
the amended claim was incurred or arose just after the hero chapter eleven petition date which was august seventeen twenty twenty two the hodges claim was incurred two days later on uh... august nineteen twenty twenty two when the trustee in her personal case miss hodges personal case sold

[00:03:33] Speaker 04:
some real estate in San Miguel, California, personally owned by Ms.

[00:03:38] Speaker 04:
Hodges.

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
As a result... I think Mr. Rich, that's probably going to say there was a claim before that.

[00:03:44] Speaker 03:
It wasn't that the amount wasn't determined until this property was actually sold, but the liability existed before that date.

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
What do you say to that?

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
That's true.

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
But what happened as a result of this sale is that the secured credor McCormick, which had a blanket lien on

[00:04:02] Speaker 04:
not only some of Ms.

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
Hodges' personal property in her personal bankruptcy, but they had a blanket lien on all assets of

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
of hero.

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
Hodge was in bankruptcy.

[00:04:20] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
So why wouldn't this claim belong to her bankruptcy trustee?

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
She was in seven?

[00:04:27] Speaker 04:
She was in seven.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
So what claim does she have?

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
Did she claim it as exempt in her bankruptcy?

[00:04:34] Speaker 02:
This would have been a claim if there was a claim

[00:04:36] Speaker 02:
It wouldn't have been hers to make.

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
It would have been an asset of her bankruptcy estate and her Chapter 7 trustee should have made it.

[00:04:42] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
Her Chapter 7 trustee stood in her shoes and sold the property.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
But the trustee did not then make a claim in the, in this bankruptcy proceeding.

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
See, she wouldn't have had the claim.

[00:04:57] Speaker 04:
He did.

[00:04:58] Speaker 04:
Mark Scharf did file a claim.

[00:05:00] Speaker 04:
in the hero bankruptcy estate.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
Including for the matters you're talking about here?

[00:05:07] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
Okay, so.

[00:05:08] Speaker 04:
Because it paid down the McCormick secured lien and McCormick freed up more equity for the estate in the hero case as a result of it reducing its security claim.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
But the claim that Ms.

[00:05:23] Speaker 02:
Hodge filed or that was filed on her behalf on the August 15th, you know, the administrative claims deadline.

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
Isn't that a claim that wasn't, I don't see how that was her claim.

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
The house that was sold was property of that bankruptcy estate, right?

[00:05:40] Speaker 02:
And she didn't exempt it and the trustee didn't abandon it.

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
It would have been the trustee in her bankruptcy estate that would have had a claim.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
Is that right?

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
But the trustee is the same as Ms.

[00:05:57] Speaker 04:
Hodges, right?

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
No, no.

[00:05:58] Speaker 04:
Not in the Chapter 7.

[00:06:00] Speaker 04:
Go ahead.

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
Well, as a result of the settlement agreement and the money that was received through escrow on August 19 after the hero bankruptcy was filed, a benefit was conferred dollar for dollar to the bankruptcy estate of hero as a result.

[00:06:24] Speaker 00:
But it went to the wrong party, which is the genesis of your claim, right?

[00:06:30] Speaker 04:
There was an agreement that it was to be, there was a settlement agreement that said that 50% of the portion, and this is in the excerpts of record, 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the San Miguel property was to pay down.

[00:06:48] Speaker 04:
The McCormick claim.

[00:06:49] Speaker 02:
We understand that.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
But the question was whose claim it was.

[00:06:54] Speaker 02:
I want to switch you a little bit on something else is that in the briefing and in Judge Clarkson's order, talks a lot about, you know, one of your arguments is the excusable neglect, that there was the excusable neglect.

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
Is that the right standard here or do we look to bankruptcy rule 3002C?

[00:07:11] Speaker 04:
Don't have that one memorized.

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
The Ninth Circuit has ruled at times that the timing of filing of claims in a Chapter 7 is governed exclusively by Rule 3002C.

[00:07:37] Speaker 03:
Makes you feel better Mr. Cechy and Mr. Ringstad also got up and grabbed his book so.

[00:08:01] Speaker 04:
Are you talking about the Chapter 11 right now, the notice?

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
Well, I'm not sure that you're going to have time in your 15 minutes here to go through this and read the cases but I would bring your attention to the NRA Edelman case, Dicker v. Dai, 237 Bankruptcy Reporter 146, that's a Ninth Circuit BAP case out of 1999.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
We should move on to another topic rather than have you spend your time on this point.

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
So we've thrown you off, but please pick up wherever you wish to take off.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
So the administrative claim order is vague.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
And it contributes to my client and my understanding that the deadline of, well, let me just read.

[00:09:14] Speaker 04:
It's excerpts of record number 11, number 272, the first full paragraph.

[00:09:21] Speaker 04:
Please take notice that the bankruptcy court has set a deadline of August 15, 2023 for Chapter 11 administrative creditors.

[00:09:29] Speaker 04:
specifically creditors whose debts were incurred after the filing of Hero Nutritionals Chapter 11 petition on August 17, 2022 and before the date of conversion at March 6 of the next year.

[00:09:45] Speaker 04:
So Section 503B1A defines administrative claims broadly as those actual and necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
This wasn't preserving the hero estate Preserving the hero estate But this was paid through the Hodges state that's the point that's but that's why the amount of our claim is the amount of the proceeds that Paid down McCormick That's a payment of a claim and apparently it was a payment of miss Hodges claim that had an ancillary benefit under the settlement agreement correct and

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
So why does that get to be a administrative expense and was that what Judge Clarkson decided?

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
He didn't look at this issue.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
Then isn't it waived?

[00:10:39] Speaker 04:
Well, not if it's part of the record.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
All of this was part of the record of before this claim was decided, even though it wasn't brought up.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
And so

[00:10:58] Speaker 04:
If it's an allowed administrative priority claim, it can stand alone as a timely claim.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
We don't even have to look at the relation back doctrine or whether or not there's an informal proof of claim because of the effect of Section 726A1.

[00:11:18] Speaker 04:
which basically says that it doesn't matter if you have an administrative claim that is late filed, it's still considered as a timely claim.

[00:11:27] Speaker 04:
It's paid on par with all the other classes of administrative claims.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
Unlike the effective 726A2 and A3 for general unsecured claims,

[00:11:39] Speaker 04:
which allows for subordination if you don't file on time.

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
Did you raise that argument to Judge Clarkson or in your brief?

[00:11:47] Speaker 04:
No, but I'm requesting remand to consider that issue.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
Well, did you raise the issue though as one of your arguments as to why the case should be remanded?

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
I mean, did you raise it in your brief?

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:12:10] Speaker 04:
But I think the trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to treat all creditors on equal footing.

[00:12:19] Speaker 04:
And if there's grounds to allow a claim based on the record, then it should consider withdrawing its objection.

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
I'll just point out you have about three minutes left.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
What you want to do?

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
I'm going to continue on.

[00:12:41] Speaker 04:
And so there's grounds that this should not be subordinated.

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
But even if it's not allowed as an administrative claim, I think as a general unsecured claim, the

[00:12:58] Speaker 04:
amended claim 41 should relate back because there's no prejudice to any party in doing so.

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
No party... Is there a prejudice?

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
If this is a claim that belongs to the Hodges bankruptcy estate, I don't know whether all of her creditors were paid in full in that bankruptcy estate but if it belongs to the trustee in that estate as opposed to her, it's not going to her, it would go to her creditors, right?

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
This, we're talking about the, this isn't her bankruptcy we're talking about, it's Hero's bankruptcy.

[00:13:32] Speaker 02:
Right, except for, again, getting back to who owns this claim.

[00:13:39] Speaker 03:
We're wondering about her standing, which affects our appellate jurisdiction.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
Is she an appropriate person to assert this claim, or instead should it be her Chapter 7 trustee?

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
Well, if the claim gets allowed, then,

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
she will receive some portion of her claim.

[00:13:55] Speaker 02:
Will she or not?

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
I don't know what happened in her, we don't have in the record what would go to her creditors in her bankruptcy.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
Were her creditors paid in full?

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
Did she claim any of this as an exempt asset in her bankruptcy state?

[00:14:07] Speaker 04:
Her creditors were paid in full.

[00:14:09] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:14:09] Speaker 04:
In fact, she got a, it was a solvent estate in her personal bankruptcy and she actually received six figures as a surplus.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
And so,

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
Can I suggest, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say on informal proof of claim in the minutes that you have left, unless you want to reserve.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
Informal proof of claim is that we look at the Taylor Sherman declaration that's in the excerpts, where it walks it.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
What is the most specific evidence of a specific demand made to the estate?

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
Trying to, in the time that you have.

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
specific demand.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
When did she say you owe me $840,000?

[00:14:55] Speaker 04:
Oh, it's what we're calling her timely claim, even though it was denied by the court.

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
So her original August 15 claim of $41,000, even though it was denied, it's a request for payment.

[00:15:13] Speaker 04:
Yes, it says to be determined later doesn't have any evidence.

[00:15:16] Speaker 04:
I get I understand but it is a request for payment and it's corroborated the nature and extent and amount by These other documents that I've been talking about showing that are in the record showing that the amount was received by the creditor which reduces claim in the state of the

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
in the estate of Hero.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:15:43] Speaker 03:
I'm afraid you've run through your, we've run you through your 15 minutes.

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
So thank you very much.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
Well, I appreciate your thoughtful questions.

[00:15:50] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:15:51] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
Mr. Ringstad, please go ahead.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
I'm unmuted.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
First, I just want to thank you all for allowing me to appear via Zoom.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
I have a very long drive over a very hot desert coming ahead of me.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
I'm not looking forward to that.

[00:16:14] Speaker 01:
I have to tell you, I feel like I prepared for the wrong case.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
What I heard from Mr. Chekian this morning is something that has never been asserted previously.

[00:16:28] Speaker 01:
He has, and first, let me just focus on his client, Ms.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
Hodges.

[00:16:35] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:16:35] Speaker 01:
Hodges filed a voluntary Chapter 11 for the company that she owns and controls, Hero Nutritionals.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
She signed the schedules under penalty of perjury.

[00:16:47] Speaker 01:
She did not disclose that she had any claims or held any claims against the estate.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
She prepared a plan and a disclosure statement.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
Neither had any indication that she had any claim against the estate.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
Well if I can stop you there because I believe in her declaration she references that she made some reference to being something like a potential creditor or or some reference to that Does that trigger any bales?

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
There there was and in what mr. Checking originally said was the informal proof of claim there was a statement that she expected money

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
had some expectation of money.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
And if you look at my brief, what he did is he took something out of context.

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
And if you look at the full language there, what she was clearly talking about was that she was expecting to reorganize the company and profit from it.

[00:17:48] Speaker 01:
That was the expectation, not that she had some claim against the estate.

[00:17:52] Speaker 01:
So that was in the language that Mr. Chekian quoted out of context.

[00:17:57] Speaker 01:
There is no indication.

[00:17:59] Speaker 01:
that in fact she was expecting to file a claim against the estate.

[00:18:05] Speaker 01:
After the case was converted, there was a regular bar date set, a Chapter 7 bar date was set, June 22nd, I believe.

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
Once again, she gave no indication that she had a claim or intended to assert a claim.

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
She did not file a claim.

[00:18:23] Speaker 01:
So now we get to the administrative claims bar date of August 15th.

[00:18:30] Speaker 01:
She does not file an administrative claim.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
She files something that is not a claim at all.

[00:18:43] Speaker 01:
The basics of the claim are the identification of the holder of the claim, the amount of the claim, and the basis of the claim.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
Her name's there, but we are told that the amount of the claim is undetermined

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
be amended And by that time had had the sale happened in the individual estate and the payment pursuant that settlement agreement been made I'm I believe so But I have to tell you none of those facts are in the record they are not they were never briefed by Mr.. Hodges either at the Bankruptcy court or before this court so

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
That's why I said I feel like I prepared for the wrong case here.

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
So that's not the basis of the claim at least that we have been told.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
So, you know, and then the amount of the claim is written in general unsecured claim, not administrative, general unsecured claim to be amended.

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
That's it.

[00:19:52] Speaker 01:
So that does not have

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
Even the beginnings of a prima facie claim doesn't assert a claim at all.

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
It's an indication that maybe they'll think of one someday.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
And in fact, she didn't get busy and go through her paperwork and give Mr. Check-In more information and they file a claim, an amended claim a month later.

[00:20:18] Speaker 01:
Well, she didn't do anything.

[00:20:20] Speaker 01:
Mr. Check-In didn't do anything.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
And that claim sat in that form.

[00:20:25] Speaker 01:
for seven months.

[00:20:28] Speaker 01:
Meanwhile, the trustee got busy and filed an omnibus objection to the multiple claims that Ms.

[00:20:34] Speaker 01:
Hodges had filed on the Administrative Claims Party.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
Even then, she waited.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
She filed opposition.

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
She didn't, again, didn't amend her claim.

[00:20:49] Speaker 01:
The trustee filed a reply to her opposition.

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
Still no amended claims.

[00:20:54] Speaker 01:
Finally, three business days before the hearing, she finally gets around to amending her claim and files the claim before the court today.

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
Be advised, it is not an administrative claim.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
It's filed as a general unsecured claim.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
The amended claim now asserts

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
a claim of $822,741.45 that she had apparently forgotten about for months, the basis of the claim is general unsecured claim.

[00:21:38] Speaker 01:
What Mr. Hodges has talked about today, this alleged administrative claim, has never been filed.

[00:21:46] Speaker 01:
It is not the claim that is before this court.

[00:21:50] Speaker 01:
nor is it the argument he made to the bankruptcy court, nor is it the argument he made in his briefs before this court.

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
It's a brand new argument.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
It's Mr. Chekin's attempt at a Hail Mary, and it should not stand.

[00:22:07] Speaker 01:
The real issue, as I see it, is that the claim that was filed on August 15th did not state a claim of any sort.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
It just literally will think of something.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
But let's just assume for a moment we didn't have this issue of the fact that was the administrative claims bar date.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
Let's say he filed that claim on the actual claims bar date.

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
That would not have been a prima facie claim.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
There's no validity to a claim that just says, we'll think of something.

[00:22:42] Speaker 01:
And in fact, what do bar dates mean?

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
Bar dates that are authorized by the bankruptcy code and rules.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
What do bar dates mean if all you have to file is, I'll file something later.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
A claim that says, I'll think of something.

[00:22:58] Speaker 01:
If that's all you have to file to toll the bar date, then bar dates mean nothing and they're meaningless.

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
And any attorney can file something on behalf of their client.

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
The client can file something that merely says, I'll get around to filing this.

[00:23:16] Speaker 01:
I'll amend this.

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
And in fact, this is what she said in this claim, general unsecured claim to be amended.

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
I'll think of something.

[00:23:30] Speaker 01:
Frankly, it takes more.

[00:23:31] Speaker 01:
And remember again, we're not dealing with someone who is unrepresented.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
We're not dealing with someone who was inexperienced in bankruptcy.

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
We're dealing with someone who filed a chapter 11

[00:23:48] Speaker 01:
signed schedules under penalty of perjury without disclosing any claim, filed a plan and disclosure statement without disclosing a claim, was well represented by counsel throughout that entire period of time, and then when the case got converted and she received notice of a Chapter 7 bar date, another bar date, still failed to file a claim.

[00:24:17] Speaker 01:
At some point, you've used up all your bites at the apple.

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
And here, Ms.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
Hodges has used up three apples, okay?

[00:24:29] Speaker 01:
So, what we're dealing with here is, if anything, if this amended claim is to be deemed a valid claim, it must relate back to a

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
a prior claim that had the basis of a claim, but it didn't.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
There's nothing for the amended claim to relate back to because all we have is this August 15th filing that says, I'll think of something.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
That's not enough.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
Under other circumstances with a different claimant and without all those opportunities to file a claim,

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
it would be easy to generate some sympathy for an unrepresented, an inexperienced claimant.

[00:25:24] Speaker 01:
But in this circumstance, someone who was well represented by counsel, both in the chapter 11 and since, someone who had multiple opportunities, indeed, the obligation to disclose a claim if she had one, she had the obligation in the schedule she filed, she had an obligation

[00:25:45] Speaker 01:
to disclose that in her own personal schedules, in her personal case.

[00:25:49] Speaker 01:
This is someone who had the obligation to disclose this and did not.

[00:25:56] Speaker 01:
Hard to be sympathetic in that circumstance.

[00:25:59] Speaker 01:
So for those reasons, Your Honor, I believe that the court's well-reasoned and thorough opinion should be upheld.

[00:26:11] Speaker 01:
I think this claim should be

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
This appeal should be disallowed, denied, and Judge Clarkson's thoughtful ruling should be upheld.

[00:26:21] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:26:22] Speaker 01:
I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.

[00:26:24] Speaker 03:
Well, you're the appellee, so there's no further rebuttal.

[00:26:27] Speaker 03:
Any more questions for the panel?

[00:26:29] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:26:29] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:26:31] Speaker 03:
Very good.

[00:26:31] Speaker 03:
The matter is submitted.

[00:26:32] Speaker 03:
You'll get our written decision promptly.

[00:26:34] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:26:35] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.