[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
25-6073 Universitas Education versus Phoenix Charitable Trust.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Mr. Sandberg.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
I need to start by apologizing

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
When I came in, I had to make a choice between potentially fighting with the door and interrupting the prior oral argument or closing it as best I could.

[00:00:26] Speaker 03:
So I tried not to disrupt anything.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
I figured fighting with the door was not a good option.

[00:00:35] Speaker 03:
I'd like to begin here today by talking about the personal jurisdiction issue.

[00:00:40] Speaker 03:
And when we look at that,

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
Oh, excuse me, counsel.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
You're representing Phoenix?

[00:00:48] Speaker 03:
I am today, yes, sir.

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
OK, thank you.

[00:00:52] Speaker 03:
When we look at this issue, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Avon, Wyoming when it lost Article III jurisdiction back in December of 2020.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
The court looks at this under a de novo review, standard review, because it's a discussion of personal jurisdiction.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
The prior- Excuse me again, counsel.

[00:01:19] Speaker 02:
How do we have jurisdiction?

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
Phoenix has never used a non-party.

[00:01:28] Speaker 03:
Let me address that then, your honor.

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
And we discussed this in our brief.

[00:01:33] Speaker 03:
What we're talking about here today are post-judgment orders.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
And when we think in terms of post-judgment orders, it begins with the district court's order.

[00:01:44] Speaker 03:
that any interested parties regarding former SDM Oklahoma could appear in court.

[00:01:53] Speaker 03:
And that is what Phoenix did.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
But they didn't become a party, though.

[00:01:59] Speaker 02:
They never were permitted to intervene, were they?

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
former SDM Oklahoma never asked to intervene.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
So they did not formally become a party, but they did make filings as an interested party in compliance with the district court's order.

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
Now, when we talk about post-judgment orders, there is precedent

[00:02:25] Speaker 03:
for parties who are not parties below to be permitted.

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
Before we get to that, it seems a little nebulous to me.

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
Phoenix is filing documents on behalf of whom?

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
Well, Phoenix... And this is...

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
Confusing, I think, in some respects, based upon the orders in the district court.

[00:02:57] Speaker 03:
Fix that.

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry?

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
Yeah, fix the confusion for me.

[00:03:01] Speaker 03:
Well, it's confusing for me.

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
I would never accept a court's confusion.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
You're their lawyer.

[00:03:06] Speaker 03:
Yeah, but it's confusing for me.

[00:03:07] Speaker 03:
And the problem is, it's undisputed.

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
SDM Oklahoma ceased to exist when the merger occurred back in 2017.

[00:03:16] Speaker 03:
Additionally... It was merged with another corporation.

[00:03:19] Speaker 03:
It was merged with another limited liability company up in Connecticut.

[00:03:23] Speaker 02:
But in addition to that... Excuse me, isn't this part of the whole David Carpenter debacle?

[00:03:35] Speaker 03:
Well, I don't know that I can agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:03:39] Speaker 03:
What, the debacle or David Carpenter?

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
Well, Daniel Carpenter has been accused of a number of things over the years.

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
He's gone to jail for a pretty long time, too.

[00:03:53] Speaker 03:
I cannot dispute that, Your Honor.

[00:03:58] Speaker 03:
When we talk about former SDM Oklahoma, though, in addition to the merger, there's another very important aspect to this.

[00:04:07] Speaker 03:
The Texas, not the Texas, the Oklahoma, I'm sorry, I'm from Dallas.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
The Oklahoma Secretary of State's office records affirmatively show that SDM Oklahoma ceased to exist in 2018 and it was canceled in 2021.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
And so it does create some confusion because- So who are you Phoenix filing documents on behalf

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
If SDMs cease to exist?

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
Well, Phoenix is an interested party here because... How do we know that?

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
The district court authorized it to file, and it has been filing, and in the filing... No, the district court said any interested party can file, right?

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
Okay, and what is your interest?

[00:04:52] Speaker 03:
And so the interest that SDM... Well, the interest that Phoenix has is it was formerly an owner of what was SDM, Oklahoma.

[00:05:01] Speaker 03:
And it is an owner in what is now SDM Connecticut, the Connecticut LLC.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
And so it is finding these... Is it Avon Connecticut or SDS Connecticut?

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
I'm confused about that.

[00:05:20] Speaker 03:
The name of the entity is SDM Holdings LLC.

[00:05:25] Speaker 03:
It is a Connecticut limited liability company.

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
So...

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
And what and what is your what is Phoenix's interest?

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
I mean Phoenix's what is the finance?

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
Let me what is the financial interest of?

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
Phoenix in these proceedings and where can I confirm that in the record, okay?

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
It's in the multiple filings that Phoenix makes and we also include a discussion of it in our brief and Phoenix

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
was formerly a owner of what was SDM in Oklahoma and is a holder, or a member, excuse me, of the SDM entity in Connecticut.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
And what is happening in the district court, and certainly no disrespect intended to the district court or to this court's prior opinions, but what is happening in the district court is that

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
asset, these policies, these assets that cannot belong to SDM Oklahoma because it doesn't, hasn't existed for years, okay, are the subject of a receivership via Avon Wyoming.

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
Avon Wyoming has indisputably not existed for even a longer period of time.

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
And so Phoenix is here because it is Phoenix's economic interest or financial interest in these assets as a member of the LLC that actually does exist.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
And what are the assets that Phoenix thinks it has a claim on?

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
The assets are a series of insurance policies that were previously owned by SDM Oklahoma when it existed.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
and are now owned by SDM Connecticut.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
Let me go about this slightly different way.

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
Because your interest and I think the jurisdictional issues depend on what relief you're seeking here.

[00:07:30] Speaker 04:
And as I understand it, let's set aside the jurisdictional complaints.

[00:07:35] Speaker 04:
You have

[00:07:37] Speaker 04:
Several types of relief you're seeking.

[00:07:40] Speaker 04:
Some have to do with Mr. Carpenter complaining that he didn't get notice of the injunction or of the contempt proceedings.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
You admit that you have no right to be arguing on behalf of Mr. Carpenter on those issues, don't you?

[00:07:59] Speaker 04:
He's the person who has to bring those claims.

[00:08:01] Speaker 03:
Isn't that correct?

[00:08:02] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor, and here's why, if I may expand on it.

[00:08:08] Speaker 03:
I'd be very interested.

[00:08:09] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
In order for the injunction to have been properly entered against Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Carpenter had to receive notice, not of the order.

[00:08:21] Speaker 03:
He had to receive notice before the order was entered.

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
And that's clearly set forth in the law.

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
Who's the entered party on those things?

[00:08:27] Speaker 04:
It's Mr. Carpenter.

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
You're arguing Mr. Carpenter's interest.

[00:08:31] Speaker 04:
We represented him in other things, I gather, so you'd like to help him, but not in this case.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
He has to be a party to this appeal.

[00:08:42] Speaker 04:
for those issues to be before the court.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
Does he not?

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
But the problem then becomes this, Your Honor.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
If a party becomes the subject of an injunction order without the proper procedure, without being given actual honest-to-goodness service of the motion that requests the injunctive relief, then who comes forward to ask the district court

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
Please give this some more thought because... He does.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
Why not the actual parties that are... Because they're not affected.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
If he's concerned about this injunction and he's bound by an injunction when he didn't get notice and so on, then he can seek a declaratory judgment, he can...

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
refused to comply with the injunction and say, you can't hold me responsible to comply with the injunction because I wasn't properly served.

[00:09:34] Speaker 04:
I didn't get notice.

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
Not some friend of his who says, gee, let's take care of this guy.

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
But it goes deeper than that, Your Honor, if I may.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
And the reason is this.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
Phoenix is already in the district court as an interested party, and it has an interest

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
in not seeing injunctions entered without the rules of civil procedure being complied with.

[00:09:58] Speaker 04:
It has an interest if it didn't get notice or if it wasn't properly served or if it's improperly named an injunction, it can do that.

[00:10:07] Speaker 04:
It can't complain about somebody else.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
That's their job.

[00:10:11] Speaker 04:
You're interested in it because you like the guy.

[00:10:13] Speaker 04:
Maybe he's paid you in the past.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
That is not the ground.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
And that's not a bad thing, but we don't have to listen to you in that circumstance.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
We shouldn't listen to you.

[00:10:22] Speaker 04:
We don't have a right to listen to you.

[00:10:25] Speaker 04:
So I'm not going to pursue that anymore.

[00:10:29] Speaker 04:
You don't have an argument there.

[00:10:31] Speaker 04:
The only other relief you're seeking is with respect to double recovery.

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
How is Phoenix affected by double-recovery?

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
And if I may, Your Honor, here's the issue when it comes, and it's broader than just double-recovery, because when we look at the 10th Circuit's recent opinion in Earth Grains Bakery, which we cited too, and when we look at the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine opinion, that's the United States Supreme Court opinion, 602 U.S.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
367, in particular, page 380, okay, when it comes to post-judgment orders,

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
OK, nonparties with an interest are allowed to make appellate arguments.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
Having said that, and that is part of the one satisfaction issue as well, which the court is interested in.

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
And I can see some merit there if I can see what your interest is.

[00:11:23] Speaker 04:
That's why I wanted to get to what you're seeking here.

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
You have no legal interest in protecting Mr. Campbell with respect to the injunction.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
I can't see that.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
What is your interest with respect to double recovery?

[00:11:39] Speaker 04:
How is Phoenix being injured by your alleged double recovery?

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
Phoenix is being injured because the insurance policies are now owned by SDM Connecticut.

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
SDM Connecticut is not a party to the civil proceeding in the district court.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
SDM Connecticut and the court has said, interested parties regarding former SDM Oklahoma may appear as interested parties.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
as a former owner of STM Oklahoma when it still existed, that is what has brought Phoenix to the court.

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
The party that may have to pay more than it should because of improper double recovery is the

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
LLC in yeah, we're they well your honor they need to start having to pay double But the problem is it is Phoenix's membership and the district court has said Interested parties may appear yes, that's fine, but but but the fact that you are

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
appeared doesn't mean you're interested.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
The fact that the judge allowed, you know, he didn't let you intervene, but he heard from you.

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
So you can make arguments.

[00:12:51] Speaker 04:
You're almost like an amicus.

[00:12:53] Speaker 04:
You're essentially an amicus, which is fine.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
But when you want to appeal the result and you're challenging double recovery, you've got to explain what your interest is in the double recovery.

[00:13:04] Speaker 04:
Then we can decide whether you're appropriately before us.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
I haven't heard

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
And the interest is, these are post-judgment orders, and we follow within the scope of the United States Supreme Court case in Alliance for the Democratic Court and Earthquakes.

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
You don't follow within the scope of anything until you identify the interest.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
How are you affected by double recovery?

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
Just tell me that.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
Well, the interest is financial, Your Honor.

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
These are assets of the Connecticut entity.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
They're not assets of Phoenix.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
Well, but Phoenix is a member, and there's no basis for the district court in Oklahoma having jurisdiction over the Connecticut.

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
How many other members are there?

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
I may be off by one, but I believe there are a total of five members, so there would be four others.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
So the problem is,

[00:13:54] Speaker 03:
You have a district court entering orders about assets that used to be the assets of an entity that clearly no longer exists as part of a receivership over an entity, Avon Wyoming, that clearly no longer exists.

[00:14:08] Speaker 04:
And you have an entity in Connecticut that does exist and could defend its interest by the judge said, I'll let interested parties in.

[00:14:18] Speaker 04:
So the SDM, the LLC in Connecticut, I'm not going to try to get the name right.

[00:14:23] Speaker 04:
The LLC in Connecticut could come and appear as an interested party.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
There are other members.

[00:14:28] Speaker 04:
You could easily, as a member, you have enough influence, I'm sure, to get that company to...

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
try to participate as an interested party in Oklahoma, but that wasn't how you did it.

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
You have Phoenix, and I... Where... But the problem becomes this thing, Your Honor.

[00:14:52] Speaker 03:
It's a due process issue, because then the district court, through its actions, and this court, should it write an opinion consistent with the comments from the bench, is forcing a Connecticut entity to appear in Oklahoma when there is no minimum contacts,

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
There are no claims, actually, against it.

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:
And I see I have run out of time.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
May I continue?

[00:15:15] Speaker 04:
I'm going to make you continue.

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
So it has... What was the last thing you said that seemed to resolve the case?

[00:15:26] Speaker 04:
You said if the LLC in Connecticut is not being ordered to pay money,

[00:15:35] Speaker 04:
Is it?

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
Did the judgment, in this case, in district court, order the Connecticut LLC to pay any money to anybody?

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
Well, it ordered something else the equivalent of that, which is it ordered that the Connecticut LLC's policies be sold.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
So it very much has a financial interest.

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
What do you mean by its policies?

[00:15:56] Speaker 04:
Who owns those policies?

[00:15:58] Speaker 03:
Those policies are owned by SDM Holdings LLC, which is a Connecticut LLC.

[00:16:02] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:16:03] Speaker 03:
And it's ordering those policies be sold to pay off the debts of... A judgment against Avon, Wyoming that was entered in the Western District of Oklahoma under an unpleaded alter ego theory.

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
So if it's, so it's being ordered as the Connecticut, not to say Connecticut LLC.

[00:16:30] Speaker 04:
is being ordered to sell some insurance policies and use the proceeds to pay university costs.

[00:16:40] Speaker 04:
Is that right?

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
Well, just one aspect of it.

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
I would put it in these terms.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
The district court in Oklahoma has ordered that the policies be sold.

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
By whom?

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
By a manager who has been appointed

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
a manager of former SDM Oklahoma, who has in turn been appointed by the trustee over former Avon, Wyoming.

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
So SDM Connecticut hasn't been ordered to sell its policies, but the court has ordered that the policies be sold.

[00:17:19] Speaker 04:
And you're saying the Connecticut LLC can't, it's not being ordered to do anything.

[00:17:26] Speaker 03:
Its assets are being taken from it.

[00:17:28] Speaker 04:
Well, who decides that it's their assets?

[00:17:31] Speaker 04:
Is that what they say?

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
Apparently, it's being managed by somebody else.

[00:17:36] Speaker 04:
Somebody's turned over those assets.

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
You know what?

[00:17:39] Speaker 04:
I'm taking too much of your time.

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
Maybe I can get some clarification from opposing counsel.

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
I think to resolve things like subject matter jurisdiction, right to appeal, and so on, we need to know what your interest is.

[00:17:56] Speaker 04:
I'm not learning very much what your interest is, what Phoenix's interest is in the judgment in this case.

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
I know two of your claims.

[00:18:06] Speaker 04:
are just for Mr. Carpenter and you can't be representing him.

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
So let me hear from the other.

[00:18:17] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:18:18] Speaker 03:
May I respond very succinctly?

[00:18:20] Speaker 03:
Yes, yes.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
In addition to the issues regarding Mr. Carpenter, and I believe I've said this a couple of times, but I want to be very direct and try to be very succinct about something, if I may.

[00:18:31] Speaker 03:
The policies are owned by the LLC in Connecticut.

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
And we know that because Avon, Wyoming doesn't exist, and SDM, Oklahoma doesn't exist, and there's the merger documents on file.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
So I don't know how else to put that, Your Honor, and my concern is that I'm not

[00:18:54] Speaker 03:
Saying that with sufficient clarity, but that is very much the interest Thank you very much for your time I'd be very indebted if you can clarify these things

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, your honors.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
My name is Joshua Greenhaar, representing Universitas de Apelí.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
To the extent these questions can be clarified, this court has already done it.

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
This court heard an appeal and issued an opinion December 31, 2024, in case number 23-6125.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
I'll refer to that as the prior opinion.

[00:20:00] Speaker 04:
Did it resolve the double payment issue?

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
That's the only issue I think is possibly before us.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
Since I was on the panel, I guess I would say no.

[00:20:19] Speaker 00:
It's kind of hard to say because I think

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
Judge Timkovich, I believe you wrote the opinion, and I don't want to quote your words back to you, but I think the other members of the panel may benefit just from hearing what you wrote when you considered these issues.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
The conclusion of the prior opinion says, quote, it is worth pausing to reflect on this case.

[00:20:46] Speaker 01:
I know what it said, but let's go to the legal issues here.

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
Know this is the third installment of this saga And that that's unfortunate.

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
We need you know we need to focus on Judge Hartz's point is how?

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
Phoenix can object to a double recovery by SDM.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
Yes your honor well Let me take those one at a time one is how can phoenix object and then I'll dress the double recovery if that would be

[00:21:13] Speaker 00:
Would be helpful.

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
Could you start with double recovery?

[00:21:16] Speaker 04:
Because to me, knowing what the issue is, is important to all the other issues.

[00:21:21] Speaker 00:
Well, quite simply, there's not a double recovery.

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
What is alleged to be the case?

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
What is alleged is that there is a prior settlement in another matter with a bank called WSFS.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
And there is a one satisfaction rule argument that appellant has made that doctrine does not apply.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
There was a separate settlement and a separate cause of action against a separate party, WSFS, that occurred.

[00:22:06] Speaker 00:
That entity was not

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
jointly and severally liable with any of the entities in this case.

[00:22:12] Speaker 04:
It was a separate tort or separate contract?

[00:22:15] Speaker 00:
Completely.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
Can you tell us what it was?

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
Breach of fiduciary duty.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
The bank was acting as a trustee.

[00:22:27] Speaker 04:
And a trustee in matters related to this litigation at all?

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
Tentatively related, yes.

[00:22:38] Speaker 04:
So there was, and Universitas lost some money because of that entity's breach of fiduciary duty.

[00:22:47] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:22:48] Speaker 04:
Was it a breach of fiduciary duty in that the entity didn't protect it against these Campbell entities?

[00:22:58] Speaker 04:
In part.

[00:22:59] Speaker 04:
Well, then there could be overlap.

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
Go ahead, Judge and Judge.

[00:23:04] Speaker 02:
Excuse me.

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
I was under the impression that the one satisfaction rule didn't apply because the respondents were held jointly and severally liable and the full amount of the judgment was not satisfied.

[00:23:25] Speaker 00:
Is that correct?

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:23:27] Speaker 00:
The judgment debtors in this case were held jointly and severally liable.

[00:23:34] Speaker 04:
With WSFS or whatever?

[00:23:37] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:23:38] Speaker 00:
No, they're separate.

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
The one satisfaction rule would be if I had a judgment, for example, against two tort feesers, and they were jointly and severally liable, and I collected from 80% of the judgment from one of them, then I could only collect 20% of the judgment from the other one.

[00:23:57] Speaker 00:
That is not what is happening here.

[00:23:59] Speaker 00:
And our brief addresses it.

[00:24:01] Speaker 04:
How much is the amount of that judgment that they're jointly and severally liable?

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
The WSF judgment?

[00:24:07] Speaker 00:
No, the one in this case.

[00:24:08] Speaker 00:
The one in this case, and I apologize, it's complicated.

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
There's a $30 million underlying judgment, and then the judgment is, Avon, is $6.7 million, I believe.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
And how much has been collected?

[00:24:25] Speaker 00:
On the judgment, in this case, of $6.7 million, I believe.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
Oh, on the 30 million.

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
How much was collected on the 30 million?

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
Approximately, and I apologize, I can't tell you off the top of my head.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
That information is in our brief and the record.

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
I believe it's about, well, since my involvement in this case, we've collected about $600,000.

[00:25:06] Speaker 04:
And who has to pay this?

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
The argument here is that requiring payment of a judgment would result in double recovery for universitas.

[00:25:18] Speaker 04:
Where is the money coming from that constitutes the alleged double payment?

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
The alleged double payment, what Appelan is saying, from WSFS, I believe.

[00:25:33] Speaker 04:
Well, that's not the judgment in this case.

[00:25:35] Speaker 04:
There's a judgment in this case for 6 million or 30 million or something.

[00:25:40] Speaker 00:
The portion involved in this portion is 6.7 million.

[00:25:43] Speaker 00:
And who's being ordered to pay that?

[00:25:46] Speaker 04:
The Avon entities in this case.

[00:25:50] Speaker 04:
And have they been ordered to pay it by selling their assets?

[00:25:56] Speaker 00:
Judge Heaton appointed a receiver, and the receiver is

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
Attempting to collect the judgment and it is it's A sale is possible, but that is one of several remedies that the receiver is pursuing including Paying the premiums on the policies and taking money from the policies as they pay out Is the insurance does feet does Phoenix have a financial interest in those policies not to my knowledge honor well they said that

[00:26:30] Speaker 01:
If they have a membership interest in Connecticut, why wouldn't they have some potential claim on Connecticut's assets?

[00:26:45] Speaker 00:
The reason for my interest in the quote before highlighted the fact that there are shell companies and there is a shell game going on.

[00:26:58] Speaker 00:
it is difficult to directly pin that down.

[00:27:03] Speaker 00:
I believe that the Connecticut entity could have intervened in this matter and chose not to.

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
I agree with that.

[00:27:11] Speaker 01:
And does this record, has Phoenix established anywhere in the record that it does have a financial interest?

[00:27:21] Speaker 01:
So far, I think all I've heard is the statements of counsel.

[00:27:24] Speaker 00:
That's great.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
Is there any kind of documentary evidence?

[00:27:28] Speaker 01:
Maybe Mr. Sandberg could have a second to address that.

[00:27:33] Speaker 00:
I don't believe so, Your Honor.

[00:27:36] Speaker 00:
I've been involved in this case since approximately 2018.

[00:27:40] Speaker 00:
And Phoenix just sort of popped up one day.

[00:27:42] Speaker 01:
And there are some helpful cases for nonparties participating in an appeal.

[00:27:50] Speaker 01:
But I think they need to demonstrate that they're not just the friend of the court amicus, that they've

[00:27:57] Speaker 01:
affirmatively been harmed.

[00:27:59] Speaker 01:
And that's one of my frustrations here, is I haven't really seen that.

[00:28:04] Speaker 01:
Because it's kind of hard to rule in this case if we don't know what's at stake.

[00:28:10] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, I concur.

[00:28:12] Speaker 00:
I've struggled with that as well.

[00:28:15] Speaker 00:
But you have said it.

[00:28:21] Speaker 02:
Does Phoenix even have standing in this case?

[00:28:26] Speaker 00:
I believe Phoenix does not have standing, Judge Kelly, that it's not a party.

[00:28:31] Speaker 00:
It did not file a motion to intervene.

[00:28:33] Speaker 00:
It could have sought to do so.

[00:28:35] Speaker 00:
In fact, Judge Heaton, in the case below, just recently declined to vacate one of his orders as requested by Phoenix because he found Phoenix did not have standing.

[00:28:48] Speaker 04:
Well, standing is particular to the claim.

[00:28:53] Speaker 02:
No jurisdiction and no standing.

[00:28:57] Speaker 04:
Standing depends on what the claim is.

[00:29:00] Speaker 04:
So if, for example, they did own the insurance policies that were going to pay the judgment and then they could have standing there.

[00:29:13] Speaker 04:
But I'm not sure what all the judgment here does is require certain people to pay certain sums.

[00:29:19] Speaker 04:
Then there's a receivership proceeding.

[00:29:23] Speaker 04:
where the receiver is trying to find a way to pay that judgment.

[00:29:28] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:29:32] Speaker 04:
If Phoenix says you're trying to pay that judgment out of insurance policies that I have a financial interest in and you have no right to get to, then Phoenix could participate through the receivership proceedings.

[00:29:46] Speaker 04:
Is that correct?

[00:29:47] Speaker 00:
It's the same proceeding, but it's an ongoing thing.

[00:29:53] Speaker 04:
That's why I say the specific thing at stake determines whether they have standing.

[00:29:59] Speaker 04:
They have no standing to complain about the amount of the judgment.

[00:30:03] Speaker 04:
I believe that's true, Your Honor.

[00:30:05] Speaker 04:
This isn't an appeal from the receivership proceedings, is it?

[00:30:11] Speaker 00:
It's just an appeal from the underlying case.

[00:30:14] Speaker 04:
Well, underlying case, that's what's troubling me.

[00:30:17] Speaker 04:
We're speaking much too broadly.

[00:30:19] Speaker 04:
This is an appeal of the judgment to pay a certain amount of money.

[00:30:24] Speaker 04:
Then there are proceedings to find a way to pay that amount of money.

[00:30:29] Speaker 04:
Is that what this is?

[00:30:30] Speaker 04:
Is this an appeal from decisions regarding how to pay the judgment?

[00:30:37] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, this is an appeal from decisions that Judge Heaton made to mechanically carry out his orders to pay the judgment.

[00:30:46] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:30:48] Speaker 04:
So, and Phoenix's complaint is that the receiver, has Judge Heaton approved anything by the receiver yet?

[00:31:03] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:31:04] Speaker 04:
And he, so Judge Heaton's judgment approves the receiver's decision that we need to sell these insurance policies.

[00:31:14] Speaker 04:
Is that correct?

[00:31:15] Speaker 04:
Yes, and that was the subject of the prior opinion.

[00:31:18] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:31:21] Speaker 04:
That was already decided.

[00:31:22] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:31:23] Speaker 04:
That the insurance policies could be sold.

[00:31:25] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:31:27] Speaker 00:
And Phoenix was not a part of that proceeding either.

[00:31:32] Speaker 00:
Phoenix, it's instructive to know.

[00:31:34] Speaker 04:
What has happened since our prior decision?

[00:31:39] Speaker 00:
Your Honor.

[00:31:40] Speaker 04:
There's got to be something new that they're appealing.

[00:31:43] Speaker 04:
What's new in the judgment of Judge Heaton that wasn't resolved in the prior appeal?

[00:31:52] Speaker 00:
From our perspective, nothing, Your Honor.

[00:31:53] Speaker 01:
Well, I don't think SDM Connecticut existed, did it?

[00:31:58] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:31:59] Speaker 01:
Connecticut did not exist at the time of the prior appeal, did it?

[00:32:04] Speaker 01:
I'm unclear.

[00:32:08] Speaker 01:
There are so many cases going on.

[00:32:11] Speaker 01:
It's a successor to SDM Oklahoma, which is a successor to Avon, Wyoming.

[00:32:18] Speaker 01:
And I do recall that Avon, Wyoming was in the prior case.

[00:32:22] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:32:23] Speaker 04:
Was there any discussion in the prior litigation before this order, Judge Heaton?

[00:32:30] Speaker 04:
Any discussion about selling the insurance policies?

[00:32:36] Speaker 00:
Before the orders that Phoenix is attempting to appeal today?

[00:32:39] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:32:40] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:32:45] Speaker 04:
What I can see is if Phoenix is a member of an LLC that owns insurance policies,

[00:32:56] Speaker 04:
that the judge has ordered to be sold to pay a judgment, then Phoenix might have an interest, might have enough interest for article 3 standing.

[00:33:09] Speaker 04:
I've still got a problem for a member of an LLC having the right to bring the case.

[00:33:16] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:33:17] Speaker 00:
We've seen no evidence to support Phoenix's position.

[00:33:19] Speaker 00:
In fact, if I may, Phoenix has put this note on a bunch of documents that's filed in the case, quote,

[00:33:27] Speaker 00:
Phoenix does not consent to the jurisdiction of the court beyond Phoenix's compliance with the court's order.

[00:33:34] Speaker 00:
And Phoenix does not consent to jurisdiction of the court over Phoenix, i.e.

[00:33:39] Speaker 00:
Phoenix is filing this document solely as a, quote, interested party.

[00:33:43] Speaker 00:
It seems to be straddling the fence.

[00:33:45] Speaker 00:
I've never seen anything like it in my career, Your Honor.

[00:33:59] Speaker 01:
All right, well to wrap things up I think the best case that phoenix has is a case called plane on the Interested party with a unique interest being able to appeal even if they were non parties below.

[00:34:16] Speaker 01:
Can you distinguish that?

[00:34:19] Speaker 00:
Are you talking about the earth grains case?

[00:34:21] Speaker 01:
No, I'm talking about plank plan.

[00:34:23] Speaker 01:
I don't have the full play PLA in 2002

[00:34:29] Speaker 00:
Tenth circuit plane versus Murphy family farms Tenth circuit 2002 okay, your honor I don't see that in the table authorities for either of phoenix's briefs in this matter I

[00:34:57] Speaker 00:
Did perhaps we cited it one moment?

[00:35:06] Speaker 04:
Bottom line is you can't just say I'm sorry.

[00:35:09] Speaker 00:
I can't distinguish it right now Your time is expired the honors.

[00:35:17] Speaker 04:
Thank you for the opportunity beer.

[00:35:19] Speaker 04:
Oh go ahead.

[00:35:20] Speaker 04:
That's Kelly.

[00:35:20] Speaker 04:
Do you have a question?

[00:35:22] Speaker 02:
One of the things that's got to be shown, at least is my understanding, is that there's cause for their failure to intervene.

[00:35:35] Speaker 02:
And I haven't heard anything on why they didn't file a motion to intervene.

[00:35:41] Speaker 00:
Me neither, Your Honor.

[00:35:47] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:35:47] Speaker 04:
So case submitted, counsel excused.