administrative claim because of the fact that it involves allegations of malfeasance a breach of duty and so on how is that different from similar claims that are filed in other words i think your point is unless i misunderstood what you sad that you're you're asking the agency to essentially decide whether in gauged in misconduct and that that's not fair because how can in the nature of the claim i guess is is my question for you it sounds to me like like your argument is that it's not fair that you have to first present your claim to the agency that engaged in the misconduct that's a complete waste of time because no agency according to your argument whatever admit that it had done anything wrong but i don't see where that's any different from any other kind of an exhaustion where we normally require a claimant to first file an administrative claim and either have it denied or wait for the passage of six months or sixty days or whatever the time period is before jurisdiction arises  and the shark one gathers and all the sharks were in a very unusual position which is what the shark case noted were debtors or weren't creditors you're switching terms on me here well the the court found that they were not creditors for purposes of  that they were depositors in essence and therefore were creditors in the court rejected that definition of creditor and there is some discussion of creditors in the case but it doesn't that the others are outside the scope of the  exactly the same position he's not a creditor because well that's the discussion i don't believe that that use a fair characterization of the rationale the court relied on their creditors let me review the language and tell prior to the receivership and they were seeking whatever the amount was is basically trying to get the institution to honor its obligation to pay the money but i think their focus is on with us the  instituting a lawsuit they actually filed a claim with the receiver so we look not at the fact that they are tendering a cashier's check and asking the receiver to honor it we look at the fact that they are claiming misconduct by the receiver because it was on or otherwise valid cashier's check is that the distinction you're asking us to draw rather than yes that that the distinction obtain judgment it falls outside the claims process as mr mccarthy would have it believe that any better is not yet brought its claims outside the claims process the courts examination corporations versus r t c and judge paul for our court goes on for pages talking about the fact that the distinction between creditors and debtors and the fact that in that case because it was not a creditor claim th examination that outside the bankruptcy context but in the bankruptcy context it made sense and indeed the course concerned with the possible interference with with confirmation was a valid concern that does not exist outside the bankruptcy context either of the receiver or the failed institution present as you raised during his oral argument your honor hungriest granted in the legislative history we provided as well as the plain language makes it clear congress wanted the receiver to have the first crack at all cla