but you know when it started they talked about there's a recognition that there are a series of agreements involving various contractual missions doesn't that support their argument that this was an independent agreement  field which all the rest shortly but first let me address the government's appeal which depends on the argument that is contrary to more than fifteen years of star precedent that is the government claims that the federal bank or was not a party to a picture it sure strikes some i would think as unusual when they completely when the plaintiffs completely settled their interest with the only government agency that had signed the assistance agree and that you still claim to not incorporated within the assistance they were i think they were incorporated in the systems agreement but also in separately in the resolutions and those put the resolutions and the forbearance letters also precedent of this court but how can the third to get back to the main point how can the third party beneficiary clause reserve plaintiff's rights if it doesn't express we let's anyone else you're express the contract not only as the third party beneficiary says no one else benefits no one else was released it also states very clearly on its face that the early parties to this agreement and all party released it was the f executive order and promises it did it more difficult times to do with multiple institutions in none of those cases did try to settle with regulatory capital promises certainly here did not do so the r t c made a report to congress what the payments were and how they were being interviewed how much money the government was saving by the settlement as compared to making the exact word payments on an ongoing basis so we've saved one hundred sixty five thousand dollars so clearly it was the plain language and the circumstances that surrounded demonstrate that this was a limited settlement and release only the f d i c as manager of physical presentation final that was the end there was responsible for the cash assistance payment the acquisition of would have been made it's not theoretical it was present it was attempted to be acquired by the first bank predecessor it was not acquired early because of the lack of capital because of the government breach and we know exactly also considered the macroeconomic factors interest rates were that's why you know over the period of time which was good news for this particular thrift and its operating plans the stock or by the government had an escalating dividend which meant the stock said i'll take the two government valuations done by the government with every incentive to get the right sophisticated parties negotiating both a purchase and a sale and that is certainly a reliable and  conservative measure of the damages at the time of the breach we feel your arse at the cross appeal we help a thrift that was one of the best performing in the midwest perhaps in government specify that there would be growth including through acquisition the business plans projected profits on the same order of magnitude as an across if you in fact the government with marketing the river valley institutions at the projected the potential for profit on the same magnitude as proserpina we know that that first base predecessor river valley wanted to acquire sanatoria federal savings bank tried to do so was unable to do so value of the assets was at the time it was with at the time that the acid purchase was not you know a person so that's it that's an important distinction because that is by the who are saying well look at this expos data when the breach occurred between us on this three year period of time he did examine other factors affecting the thrift during this period going back to the why building the distinction here is the focus really should remain on whether or not there is an expressed reservations situation here where there was a bright integration clause incorporated love documents  i may doubt even use it all but i do have breast this notion that somehow our first bank mitigated by the virtue that if some of these share some of the press its predecessor shareholders were able to form a new company and with others make the san antonio federal savings bank acquisition the notion that bapi was million patients by first base or its predecessor these are these are independent corporate entities with their own little claims that the government insisted bruno's claims directly as a corporation not through shareholders that's what the us case corporation brought claims the corporation was unable to mitigate and the fact that some of its shareholders were able to participate in an acquisition does not mean that the corporation is unable to recover the only relevance to this is that it demonstrates that in fact the san antonio federal savings bank would have been at least as profitable from your first major edge predecessor