trust standing here but i'm wondering if the easiest way to deal with this is simply with the release link which perhaps you could deal with with with that i very broad release well it's  broad release but for purposes of the present case i think we've got a bit look at two narrow issues the estate is the one that has the rights let's begin with that premise then the question is who is to really see and the rd question is what claims are released  we have to we have to take it in two parts impending contractor of who they're making two arguments in their district court they argue that it was an independent contractor of the trustee now it did not have a contract with the trustee the contract  not a party to a contract just one more question who can hire and fire b who is the trustee is the individual who has to make that decision but the contract from which manager of such and such is still with the corporation so there is not but there and in that situation it still has no direct contract between the president of the corporation and the general manager of such a lot of them why does any of th can't be any other answer because the state is the only one paid any money as a result of the made sixty two thousand and sixteen dollars order to sorry individual he was without or ended up with the residual rights of the estate that's not  and that's where you say you acquired the right to file a claim against b him yes as opposed to the trustee having that right if the trustee chose to do so the trustee had to right for a certain period of those are released against the independent contractors of the trustee who is very and themselves if you read that if you read that release you'll see it's the most well it's a matter of proof or is it well not exactly because it is i think it is hard to the estate if you're just two players in the he concluded with each other as to what the future should be that they were charging this claim against b m s was never a claim of the dad or until the dad only paid off all the money in two thousand and eighteen and assumed the rights of his stay this claim arose post petition from the debtor and the entity so i think it would be a mistake to conclude that the entities includes the debtor in at least in the latter part of the paragraph see  now even even if you can i mean you may say boy you're reading that too closely and you're just you just finding him you would be with none exists the problem here is that there was no ambiguity as to whether or not rights under that white moses and singer of the council for the trustee got a release for itself its employees its independent contractors good secretary is going to get released somebody did it had a contract with for example microsoft a broadway management versus rockers the determining factor as to the rights of a rd party beneficiary is the intention of the parties actually made the contract conceptually there should be a distinction here between what is manifested which the parties to the agreement negotiated and relied upon versus what they subjectively intended what i'm what i'm getting out of community out of new jersey law the question was raised what's left in the state there was a lot left in the state for example claims against the pound tracks with to start individual we all those were not distributed as a result of this agreement there were things left in  issue was raised what happens if any of this money is actually recovered by spin or where does it go the answer is it goes to spinner and the other people and if it's a class action the other people who hold these rights of the estate