value on its balance sheet but after the transfer by the corporation two days later to mistakenly in there actually of approximately two point five million dollars that who would have made the company insolvent but for one argument that the land of cabot obtained by the corporation in the amount of three point five million dollars executing the guarantee it's either or he can't have it both ways must focus on solvency both courts found solvency at the time of the transfer yes why what's the standard of review for that finding of fact loan an asset and you know i first read this i had i must admit i had to read this the facts of this transaction what was going on here several times for i think that i understood and i'm not sure that i understand all of the debts creditors and debtors and the bankruptcy court made an effort to really look at what was going on in this transaction and made note of the fact that  the case in most accurately loans the bank doesn't feel secure to give the loans out a guarantee so then by definition all loans that are secured by a principal would be an asset of a corporation instead of a liability door so we didn't help anybody anymore not even the bankruptcy proceeding related to is what i understood the bankruptcy court did and correct me if i'm wrong i mean the sort of bank the bank of scrip primarily relied on its sort of equitable kinds of authority and responsibilities that not proper that is proper but the court turned it upside down it would take the pepper case to court the supreme court says yes you can look at the balance sheet and you can change things and what the court did there is the court two point five million dollars and creditors are holding the bag you know when the bankruptcy court did this it had these two affidavits you have these two reports that you were talking about right at the beginning the remarks yes your argument and the bankruptcy court looked at one and looked opinion and so when you take judge hawkins's comment earlier if you look at all the evidence why was all that clearly erroneous in this context that the bankruptcy court could act in a sort of equitable role looked at the these creditors would being paid constantly and they were being paid with the banks money so the pressure the creditors very much projected on the at the other end of the tragic end when it was all over it was the creditors who were protected from your honor it's the appellant here is character saying we should stick with the technical characterization of the long at the outset as a live delivery of the corporation well when it went bankrupt it would have been alive billeted and in fact that liability was wiped out by the william was it he was on the line and he paid and paid and paid and as we know this little venture cost him about six million dollars and ultimately resulted in his own personal bankruptcy and the loss of this home but i think that really there are two principles for application in this case one is clearly that the bankruptcy court as has been noted does it has a core that witty and it's very important in this case because it is tasked if it's its job is to look beyond behind the form and look at the substance of the transaction and that's what the court tried to do bankruptcy court said you know we don't have to be we're not down by that that is not dispositive first of all there is no gap that even defines insolvency it's a factual inquiry and the court made a very careful gifford federal income tax liability in determining whether a dead debtor was insolvent and the court said you know we can move these things around sometimes any of the gaps were relevant here are relevant but certainly not controlling and as the court inquired at the outset the determination of insolvency is a finding is that it's  judge mars analysis was remarkably scholarly and detailed and she found as had the bankruptcy court that it was so much evidence that the true asset here was the capital doesn't that basically take care of the claim that there was fraud two point five million dollars worse off of that he could not have forgotten that he signed a paper city before and he promised not to do that the other thing is california corporations coat five hundred