through the bankruptcy code way of changing with this in terms of adequate security was so utterly critical when we're dealing with a song for somebody with the ability to tax or otherwise raise revenue through affects the total but if but if you're if the fifth amendment argument on the way to reserve account is set up the way the expenditures are meet isn't that essentially a when it submitted its fiscal plan to be oversight board said that that we can trust in the future employer contributions so they cannot then say that we are protected by those very contributions and that district court remember a district court found that the eight million a month and so there's somewhere more than one hundred million now when they are seeing is that they are diverting our money but they don't actually need it they're not using it as representative is that it's simply sitting in an account being separate account don't keep it in an operating account where you're free to spend it put it in a separate account and agree not to touch the money for the state and went to court decides may have that shit about says to them money or not that's when  even if it prohibits them that does not prevent them from simply separating the money right now the money is sitting in an operating account and they are representing to this court they're not using it but they're free tomorrow to spend that money or even does not attach the papers that are being filed and all of this litigation so it's really been a tremendous distraction to the economy which is exactly the opposite of what congress intended when assume you were going to do this state precisely because we don't want you to be spending reinstate the reserve accounts and we don't think that's the right standard and you know we don't think they're entitle to an equity cushion that would not only ensure that they're being paid but also kind of ensure that they have a secondary drawing of kind of security for getting paid in the future property will talk about that it a moment but bondholders are secure room till the conclusion of the police is but for many many years the comb based upon the stipulated record that was before the district court routed to which the bankruptcy code provides adequate protection they advanced position despite the fact these two statutory schemes have different language and were intended for very different purposes  from enron commonwealth employers council from the opponents made mention of the fact that there is only representations or statements as to the uncertainty with respect to future contributions there is no uncertainty with respect to the non commonwealth contributions which amount to approximately twenty million dollars per month in fact through two thousand and fifteen again this is in the interest received about two hundred twenty four million dollars it's so we in non collateral they have a room in the reserve account collateral which will pay them and they have a boom in the future rabbit and the last thing that i think is critical is with the judge with respect to if i may finish runners with a judge to just recorded with kind listed in rule seven answer answer with points and so on but that's wrong what the room requires is a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought and that is precisely final two of the three parties had included proposed compliance with their motion papers and one of them all pair did not include a proposed or draft complaint so there was nothing to correct and i will always be thinking he thought he would be taking the risk of having to respond while we were yes we did not want to take a position frankly on any aspect of these constitutional planes and that relates to the station as well having the only site board paid a position on the merits or refusing to take a position on the merits has an impact on our ability to negotiate our goal as we see our statutory role was through to operate in a level playing field frankly by a playing field that's what the state is about and that's what we said in our intervention papers and that's what we're going to judge sauls as to why they are going our motion for reconsideration why we didn't take positions on the merits we still have not taken positions on the merits and we believe that during this quiet period before title six of title three proceedings are filed we should not our goal is to deal with those claims in the conference room not the court room and see if we can negotiate restructuring agreements or consentual fiscal plans his words and had it done so he would have you refer to such from two twelve a a pro mesa which allows us to intervene in any action against the commonwealth he could have done so wonderful twenty four a two which allows us to intervene as of right based on our interest our unique position and the adequacy of representation so on and we would then have participated in the case but while we think that the  scourse prior decisions supported the oversight board's view on these motions the one case cited in the court below was a case where there was no no proposed only no all submitted and we would agree if the puter did intervene it doesn't bother to put in a proposed pleading of any kind then i could see denying the motion but even there in the court's decision and leave it there was no intervention motion but intervention was allowed particular fact but but the right decision clearly so those seven orders should be reversed unless the court has questions on intervention i'd like to turn to amethysts position on the state motions and we have suggested the oversight board has suggested a standard that is somewhat different than the other parties we do not believe that the sole touchstone should be adequate protection though i will say judge that your hypothetical would i believe present a situation where adequate protection might trump everything else but this is nowhere close to a case where one hundred percent of anyone's collateral is being taken and destroyed we also don't believe that irreparable injury own is the sole cause stone it wanted to copy it knew how to copy and it did not do so here and i think for purposes of statutory construction that all to be enough so why should the pro m bad during the quiet period only after we decide which way to go do we commence a bankruptcy proceeding if that's the decision to go into chapter title three strip away the basket of rights that the secured creditor that situation the record stablish is over security here there is cash and cash flow that is more than sufficient to pay the debt service and certainly during the duration is what distinguishes this case where we have a perpetual income stream from virtually all if not only cash collateral cases or added protection cases that no one cite those cases were real state put forward and i'm not all a lot by making the point that this standard that the oversight board is advocating is a balancing of a variety of factors without giving any one factor complete priority is not a new or on familiar standard the courts constantly weigh the factors to assess pause in many situations where the statute doesn't list them or give examples from a set uses cause in only two instances one of them is the one we've been talking about the other one does not list reasons the bankruptcy code and the bankruptcy rules authorize courts act for calls or for paul is shown in seventy one separate spots by my count of which reasons or examples are given in only ten need examples to figure out what the material relevant factors are and if in your hypothetical if the facts presented or why your hypothetical and constitutional issues are that is the side that he has to balance all of the factors and that only the factors that he was required to assess was adequate protection and i think that i would speak for the oversight board like to see a decision from this core that is more express and that could be more expansive on the balancing that makes it clear that the mesa regime create the pitching is different from the naively discomfort he sought to do we saw him we saw it's a good the financial projections of the revenues what they are likely to be so our expert witness could try to prepare and come up and see whether those projections are going to be adequate judge when it's necessary to do the calculations when they stop taking the collateral because this case is your hypothetical if they just keep taking the collateral into the future the bird the collateral isn't going to be sufficient to cover the hole and then it's not sufficient the immediately suggest is not sufficient that we can assume the future and good only secured claim against them for money damages they basically say they don't have one hand that future revenue stream and point to these hypothetical payments and then say by the way things are uncertain we don't know that they will be pete and for members and ensuring hearing was scheduled in this case the will suggest goes as far to say was incumbent upon us to notify the court that we had other evidence to submit that it's somewhat disingenuous to say that to understand the timing was scheduled for november third they d party submitted joint stipulations which we had gotten together and agreed to in order to streamline the hearing everyone's fully aware that there were other means that parties intended to meet we notified the court that morning that they would be expert repeatedly say otherwise and pages and pages of their brief talking about how they do not have money to pay their creditors they do not they cannot their debts and the commonwealth over the year as address to be their prior and that gets bumped up a significant amount i mean at the end of the day hearing schedule that we were really entitle to wonder where he would have an expert testified where the commonwealth would put forth evidence on the the commonwealth i apologize if i were but the common law you know in discussing what an extraordinary case would be it's sad that this court need not be concerned because what we're dealing with here is money and cash clowder all of that can be europe and  claim that is not enough the constitution