in final case for argument today here's teamsters pension fund against patel run it please the court will be right on behalf of the defendant running your head here on soon as a shadow because the window behind you is very bright if you would you could close that window or turn up  that's not the america but it's a basic rule that you never want to appear in front of a bright background do but it's ok well to do these to test these things beforehand rather than waiting for assistance from the article three judiciary because we were not confirmed nominated by ok so so basically i think the ultimate issue is the language in messina about whether renting a proper a read free is probably  best my clients have none of the elements that were was did in any of those other cases they did not take any tax benefits and it was admitted by the union there is no evidence that  property wouldn't agree though that it conferred benefit on their company not sure you pronounce his company's name grady grady's yes if there is a benefit i would say it was so minimal as to be as against that i'm not sure i buy i mean you made that argument your proof so i understand you're making it but yes there are there the immediate benefit they're giving grady's is lower costs of business operations here they're getting something for free that in the in the real market the arm's length market people pay for now if they're really efficient company and they save a lot maybe they'd have a lot for withdrawal obligations maybe not the immediate benefit  just lower cost of operation why isn't that enough to take it under our cases out of the scope of purely for investment and i suppose you i would also like to know other than just show the i mean you know the fund went through all the hoops that it was supposed to it sent the notice it offered you arbitration it offered you monthly payments it did all these things and the patel is chose to go for all all or nothing and so here we are with with this now this withdrawal so i think they were the ones who had to say this property isn't  fact part of our common business it's just that for well i think you have to look at the fact that it was bought eighteen years prior that it was never went to that  or yeah i mean i understand it was purchased earlier why does that help us i think it well i think the analysis has to be complete we have to look at all the factors and i don't think the trial court looked at any of the factors or i think it just applied the misener role as a blanket so all of those things could be factors but i don't think that was really  expanded upon by the courts i think the assumption with messina is that it's a it's an absolute rule and i think that one of the factor if some of these factors could possibly go in the union's favor but i think most of them don't and fact most of the factors in the other cases have nothing to do with my client so you know sure certainly there is some benefit here but i don't think it's  is not per se an effort to avoid the withdrawal liability i think it's very common for people to do this i think it's very common for people to have an investment in property   you know if it conferred benefit i think this benefit was minimized by the fact that if they had a arm's length once or less see that they would have been increasing the equity in the property by being to show profit and so when the building is sold there is a established track record of viability of this property that wasn't the case here so if anything i think it has no bearing on equity and i think the the benefits are minimal and i i don't think that there is much yet to put a cash value to and i think it would be her  i think i do your honor thank you very much me please of course my name is patrick ryan and i'm representing the plaintiff ethically in this case local seventy five pension funds you know the issue before the court right now is a very discreet one about whether the owners of the company owners of a company who is what drawn from the pension fund also on the property may be held jointly liable as businesses trades or businesses under common control and i think judge would you hit on that right case messina which really kind of controls the outcome here ownership i think the most significant factor here is that this isn't a case where the telos own the property that they were renting to underlay did vigils whether it's a residential property or commercial property you know so you know from two thousand and one the ownership of coast took ownership of the property it existed just for grady's to do its business and tell those other companies to do their business you know i think that the issue about purchasing the property back in two thousand suggests that maybe the patel is arguing that there's a need to show a specific intent that they structured the ownership in this way to evade collective bargaining agreement and we're not into the elevator avoid provision of what's wrong liability provisions here we're not arguing that at all you know what messina get sad part is that this is a coming mechanism where you know companies will  i don't think there's really any doubt that if they had incorporated and it was holding company for the property that they would be a business owner under common control so i do think that the fact that they just held as individuals the analysis really is the  consistent ciena and judge what i think you're also going on the fact that if grady's wasn't allowed to use his property the five by the patel if they would have had to have taken some other action to obtain property maybe it would have been their household i don't know but presumably it would have been out on the common market to lease property to conduct their business and you know the fact that she did start to lease the properties to other entities after operating and then they kept the proceeds from those leases the proceeds didn't go to tell it was again to me suggests that this was a property that existed solely to benefit great ease and she acts here  i think given how discreet the issues are i don't really have any thing more to present to you all this morning certainly have it take any questions but otherwise i think you are very much for your time very few have to run anything further just simply judge i think the statute you know provides that liability only attaches to businesses under common control there has to be a determination that this was a trader business and i don't think the analysis was  ever conducted in this case and i think despite what messina says or actually the application of the scene i think it suggests that if something is improbable you have to look in to see if it in fact could occur and so i i think rushing to determine that this is a trader business simple because of your rent for your relationship is to ignore the fact that are all all these other factors in relation to determine what a trade in business is so i don't think that the scene a decision as has bright line is it's construed because i think even a messina they analyzed all the issues and and again i'm i'm not entirely convinced that the union is you know jump through all the hoops that they needed to establish that