and sixty four dollars you need to be interpreted broadly by the court you're asking us to interpret it narrowly can you can you talk us somehow around that language yes you're in several different parts  mr montgomery one second t thus the need to protect all of the incidental attributes of any concession needed from the earliest parties in the case to achieve the investment of fresh capital i think this is therefore quite distinguishable from the sun or situation completely different from the current situation in which it is the all of the concessions given by the prepositions your leaders because the debt lender b the reason that we want such concessions is he did not want to be involved in the very litigation that the committee wants to bring about what is the value of either adequate protection or the value of the question that might  ist to protect the pretention secured wenders this case has a very straightforward record on the question and there is no doubt that the patrick entire transaction was surrounded by good but in addition around it there is no doubt that the committee did not see it as either from the bankruptcy court or from the district court or for that matter even this court and as the court has acknowledged in other situations that effort to seek a stay is incredibly important if you are going to challenge the merits were either statutory this is a the preposition secured creditors did not consent easily the record is shows that they filed reservation the right they actually fought over issues the final dip their end regarding the whether or not the act of protection being provided was consistent with the inner creditor had been in place and or the committee to this court to say that the failure to seek a state is used to repay and support the post addition lending and then we're not willing to take the chance that entire case should simply shut down with respect to the  two motion kept the record alive for revision of the final dip order and in fact the court did revise the final did order to meet the needs of standards and on february four and also appears in the record committee tries to persuade you that the lender stipulation as it's referred to is the best evidence of the lenders intent i suggest to you that spectrum that governs of course discretion to determine the preposition secured creditors were entitled to the absolute protection act and which as i said was a grand bargain in return for their consent so the final deporter which crimes there otherwise st priority mortgage which is not being contested by the way by committee to the tune of one up to one hundred and eighty five million dollars and only for that of the other allowed the chase to continue as a going concern not as a liquidation it also enable thousands of patients to continue to receive care and hundreds of doctors and nurses to continue to be employed so the essence of that this is a rule in under the th circuit precedent if so long as one of the those two laws are conditional on both loans should be entitled to the protections of three hundred and sixty four feet to the extent that there was that quid pro quo that's exactly what happened here we've stopped the what happened here under three thirty three of the credit agreement our consent was required it was a condition to get that diploma that we get this benefit