like to focus specifically on the question priority and the question of which role prize with respect to priority and let me start by saying nine three for three protect the statute somewhere to the what i'm focusing on they say that about other arguments where we compare provisions of nine nine two for oil and other sections but not this specific argument their response to this argument is you can't do that you can't create a secret leaning would be it would be unconstitutional and what i say in response to betty is that's not so for the state has been very even handed in creating it and saying but buyers in the urban area course  business are protected and i think that's where the law should be if you compare small producers who don't have hyper and large institutions to have paper and what they're basically saying is writes important to me i think it works and it leaves the law where it should be which is barring the ordinary course is there anybody anywhere producer that you know that actually went out and found financ forty or fifty that's true your honor i'm just saying it is not realistic to assume that people with small fraction interests are going to be in a position to fall i'd like to address both of them at one but i that's correct it is the parliament at the time of the transaction and i think we can we can show that there is a fact issue about why they are not about your course at that time and in your fact as she was but there are three reasons one group is selling it invoicing and the pain it is set up so that it goes to the parent the parent entity under those circumstances what's wrong with the district court and the bankruptcy courts analysis that says it is from ball our are wholly owned subsidiary is doing our bidding and the u c c accounts for that what's wrong with that reasoning because where's the proof where's the evidence that the course of dealing over the years that in evidence they're asserting it and they have to come forward with the other and better evidence if you come forward with this this is a wholly owned subsidiary this is the course of dealing over corsi years that's the evidence so you said there's a fact issue i'm trying to step back your opponents of make the argument pretty strongly that you don't have any rate to make this argument at all that you wait you said quote  you're as never contested and does not now contend that the old grammar production revenue standards act creates a trust of any kind unquote why is that not a straight up waiver of and we're not saying now that this creates a trust of any kind we're not saying that so why is the fact that you are asserting in that context we believe there's not a trust created under the statute not something we should pay attention place but he has the ability to repeal the two thousand and nine bankruptcy court decision finding that there was no trust so we knew already that we had a right to that but what are these words mean i'm trying to get with the media these words by the way we're getting ready the reason i'm in trying to keep semi close to the timeline is i have something coming up later this afternoon and i usually my colleagues get upset with me because i usually ignore the read like today i can't unfortunately i'll try to be very brief i understand the argument we're hearing from the associated producers to be they don't get to play this corporate shell game where they were all separate gotta respect the corporate veil between us here and then when it's convenient say we're all one big happy and how can that how can that state law interest be ignored and should it be considered in determining that the choice of law i think that i think there is a stable interest and i will tell you how i think it should be nothing secret about this it's on the statute book and people understand it and the fractional interests involved are such that people in the ordinary course to use that phrase again all know that nobody's going to run in file every time is debate obviously about what was actually put in your record but it seems clear to me from the record that you only son his will that you were getting from some group came from the state of texas no in fact none of the oil where they would raided or oklahoma where their main office was located but yet the texas producers say wait a minute you know we sold them or oil gas and that was in texas and when when for the mechanism of deeming a security grouping created by certain things so would be a contract deal in general with security interests enforceable in the bankruptcy that was concern of the texas legislature if you look at the texas legislature if you look at the record at the affidavit from from conoco at nine seven three one two nine seven three four it basically says that if any of these statutes really are given a broad reading they ask for your role in strict cannot function and i think of the logic is compelling courts appropriately dismissed the producer's claims against b p or be it on grounds that the more courts did not specifically address the producer's claims are all premised on the incorrect assertion that b p did not pay some crude for any derivative trading deaths notably the producers reply brief doesn't address a single argument in opposition papers and it therefore appears that the producers no longer contest that b p was a buyer in the ordinary course first i should no knew that will undermine their claim of good faith and lack of knowledge because they had awareness that these people couldn't possibly make those payments they couldn't meet on the time we schedule the stuff that was being brought to the fore that's some crude for the oil it had no way of knowing at the time that b p paid some crude in cash one hundred percent for the well it had no way of knowing that a month later or whether six weeks later some crude was not going to pay the producers that's that's yes it is to the point where we could say there's no way right because their argument is there is a way you were where when you say there's no way we could have known it what is it that you or i see the knowledge that's required under the statute is a lack of knowledge but the sale violated the producers writers that the actual sale violated the producer my point today here is we didn't gauging any derivative we didn't offset any derivative trading desk with respect to the only or oil at issue we entered into competitions with b p with some crude in february and may of two thousand and eight for delivery of oil in june pursuant to those confirmations in june sent crude delivered one hundred thirty five million dollars worth of oil to be paid that excuse me  the statute of general applicability to security interests wrong is a very specific statute or it pushed owners so bad argument is incorrect and the statute does apply and the interest is should taken into account in deciding what laws to apply second this will stop up commerce for heavenly days but if you have buyer in the ordinary course he's accepted from this it's very up your argument against people no big pete look the argument is b p is much much tougher and a lot of what he said is the factually we agree with but there is an argument as to b p which is in the breach that they took this oil as security and their executive vice president testified we were highly compensated secured lender better but they were really doing that was their intention whatever the documents i have visited your city have they have they're given money and they're taken oil that sure looks like a purchaser looks like they're giving a new value it doesn't look like security was a great you know this is a unique i will absolutely agree with you on this is a tough situation when someone can get security it back which is a state or situation i take the fork lift do not hold it as collateral and then when i don't need to be more scrabble i give it back all right but when you have a fungible commodity you just buy it and you own the money and you just continue to roll your debt and then whenever you need it you just pull the rip cord when you take the security isn't the answer to that too bad for the associate producers because if something is bought and purchased and you own it even if in a sort of a metaphysical sense or one can think of this as a security you own it and so you own it and it's not security in the eyes of the law you brought me i understand your thinking what you are saying and i can understand the argument that like all i'm saying is is it fair to look at the intention and that's my question let me get to two quick things the argument about value going to the wrong nature of them i want to make sure i understand you're saying that if we accept that you are blocked from making the statutory trust argument the big concern constructive trust argument that because this was the producer said yeah we'd like their argument on that