the oversight board stripped the arrests of all of its assets in revenues for the benefit of the commonwealth of puerto rico and the commonwealth of puerto rico its creditors isn't the question whether the district  we're talking about here is the arrest as assets existing as of the petition date and the property that it choir thereafter so specifically we're talking about approved unpaid receivables but yes i do as yet jackass i am asserting that i have a right to post petition contributions of employers received after the petition date which i believe for the st which i assets bonds and other government issue worse seven hundred million dollars worth of accounts receivables for four additional uniform contribution it's a little frustrating here riptide brief mention none of this even if i read it correctly and i missed it he replied paid no attention to our january decision transfer was an authorized with respect to the st but there's no dispute at least with respect to the one hundred and ninety million that a transfer occurred we obviously large that it was a bigger transfer than that with with respect to the they answer your honor's question your ass receive nothing in exchange for the transfer for of its assets the commonwealth is paying the pensions but it's receiving the revenue streams that iraq would otherwise have provide you with the remedy they had even seen care i understand it in your i have a different siri liability here but isn't it true that if you w contributions that the legislation terminated they contend that they have an interest in reinstating those employer contributions because even though this court proposed plan that does not sell the collateral the rest it is now an empty financial shell with the remnants the only thing to do is to sell the collateral there's nothing else there it has no purpose it doesn't provide health service teaching police it has to be sold they would never have an unsecured claim against the i r s and that is why even if they successfully prosecuted a lawsuit reinstating the employer contributions the judge did i think what this court would want to do is look at all facts and circumstances and i'd like to provide an analogy in the corporate world it certainly the case in many cases not all that corporate subsidiaries of a holding company are in a rough and tumble situation sometimes with different creditors and they fight with one another and see who gets the most and maximizing the estate is their game and you know they go there are further reasons counsel for the retiree committee will likely go into them but you've already mentioned them there are four reasons why that transfer may well hold up against or for doing transferred because yes sixty three doesn't apply does show it it could clearly be determined to be an authorized transfer i mean we're simply saying that we know where they come in for adequate protection of their lien on the s s they probably would have been granted it that would have been we would have had to safeguard to them somehow one hundred and ninety million dollars absent the use of the police power to show that under the extreme financial distress and that's the case we could have made it but we're just not making it here i mean there it were giving them something they had to they say it's not enough and suddenly there's two billion but that's not a battle that the financial oversight board decided to take on th is a question of holistic view versus conflict that might exist it's that issue front and center and any other adversarial complain or other proceedings that we might not be aware of from reading this questions product which is that the claims have no merit the common ground here i think amongst all the grease is that if you don't have a meritorious false claims then the board could not have abused his discretion in refusing to bring them and the claims here are not with merit this court's january th decision put the nail in the coffin of the claim to avoid the statutes themselves if he didn't have a property interest in claims and she concluded that they had potentially strong defenses to them even before this court had issued its five hundred and fifty two decision and no one has suggested i mean the bondholders say she really didn't look at the claims but she clearly did and everyone on r g p for her all the reasons why those claims were suspect i don't think the standard here is if the client has any minute chance of passing a motion to dismiss it an additional reason here why judge swain didn't have peace or discretion which goes to the statements that mr been stuck just made that the commonwealth and the board made the law which is a practical matter they're going to put the one hundred and ninety point five million dollars back into the ers a state if the bondholders in the litigation below dealing with tracing of their liens show that they have a winning they've now said they'll put it back even if they don't trace with regard to a l board of found all parties noted that in their objections to the motion and the court understood and that was part of the argument that that money would come back and and so in a way the board and the commonwealth of agreed to do more ok if somebody has a claim that might pass over the line we'll let it go forward and we'll see how it plays out but here you're talking about a situation where half the claims admittedly by this court's decision are gone the major claim they any arguments in defense to that so you don't need a lawsuit you don't need a trustee to do something the parties are already agreed to do but one of the thing i would say is i think there's a misconception in this argument from the bondholders about the two billion and all the rest of it there is not there is that all of the assets were transferred over one hundred and ninety no one was transferred over but there are other things that are there that's what the parties are talking about and trying to determine who has a lien rights and then in the lead tracing litigation so it is not a situation where our the r s's assets were taken and moved over to the commonwealth and as to your honor's point with regard to five hundred and forty nine remember the honest makes this transfer soon to a statute under puerto rico law you don't get to say i won't comply with the statute because i don't think it's valid or i think it can be avoided here as did this person into a statute that was enacted by the legislature that required the transfer of the assets and even that was standing or that the ruling the commonwealth is willing to send the money back if the bondholders are entitled to receive it taking into account the entire framework of chapter nine were that the debtor made payments not because of political pressures or a desire for future good relationships with a particular creditor but because the payments were mandated by state row th was no longer operational and therefore does not aspire to maintain or build strong ties to its creditors therefore it was suspected of the code ability of the claims the judge granted ruled that it was appropriate for the debtor off track betting to declining to appoint a trustee and he was not going but they are naturally asserting the exact same theories in their individual capacity and one of the problems with the point in a trustee here is a father and the ers and the commonwealth are defending those claims if  specific exceptions in three o three if it was just that hey this is a nice idea it has to have meaning otherwise why would congress have specifically carved out three specific areas where three o three doesn't apply that's in the debtors property under three o five because the oversight board consented to have professional fees regulated if the commonwealth pays my fees and ignores that in the course of the order but if it makes a payment that is inconsistent of the court's order and that would be an the bonds but pursuant to the bond resolution import and other federal constitutional provisions there's no basis for those claims to be treated as as recourse they're not subject to the recourse limitation in the bond resolution