yes it would protect creditors to some extent against each other and the assignment is the right mechanism to allow for the disposition of property of an insolvent debtor and that was available  the courts have held that at least some state regulation of that common law mechanism is appropriate i think it's helped that if the mechanism or the regulation goes to the extent that a discharge is involved in the state regulation of the assignment procedure that that regulation is preempted by the bankruptcy if that is not the case other cases say that that is not the sole criteria that discharge is not the sole criteria for determining whether a state regulation bankruptcy or even force an unwilling person into bankruptcy in certain circumstances there are lots of opportunities to get directly under the federal scheme the federal scheme is desired that's true but i think that was the directly what happens in a bankruptcy case the other way is under five forty four be off some cases have suggested that five forty four be allowed state preference law to be incorporated into the bankruptcy code and sure would argue that in this case our position is that by forty four b only permits avoidance powers that are available to individual creditors by the language of the statute to be brought into the trust into the federal bankruptcy form which was not dispositive of the preemption argument and that's what we're arguing here this is a completely different kind of question and it's coming to us from a not in any  current provisions of both chapter seven and chapter eleven of the bankruptcy code with respect to corporations like i think link year and liquidation proceedings both do not involve discharges the bankruptcy code is not provided just charge of corporate jets in the liquidation scenario which makes it pretty apparent that a bankruptcy law involves something more under the preemption doctrine i think pretty clearly that the stay couldn't just incorporate chapter seven and have a competing scheme for discharging debts under its auspices i think that's situation why shouldn't we take a combination of us two cases as meaning that when that particular procedure or state law that's involved does not lead to adopt a preference recovery statute which has additional burdens and powers with respect to the right to bring out of state predators into california there's nothing you can do about it well that's the difficulty of the question we do know that there's a limit to what the state can do and we know the discharge provision is one we have courts that say the discharge isn't the only factor that's involved  the bankruptcy code as adopted by congress and that states are not permitted to regulate preference recoveries in their collective insolvency proceedings and it's based on the  will do my best to clarify any the issues i notice that most of the entire discussion related to the preemption issue this black who said it all comes down to congressional intent and that's what we're looking for here and courts do not likely federal courts do not honor that's my forty eight five forty seven his preferences five forty eight is fraudulent transfers five forty four b is trustee exercising the rights of the creditors and if it's invalid under state law under telephonic discussions we were unable to resolve the issues we did not go to formal mediation and from my experience in this case i think the parties the bankruptcy court has a right to abstain in the bankruptcy c the bankruptcy judge finds it's in the best interest of the creditors and the d this in my opinion the fair market value of this contract three million seven hundred thousand dollars at the very end of his declaration and