which was then dismissed because all parties agreed that we would proceed by way of motion in the existing federal lawsuit all right and it was accepted by the federal district judge on that basis because it did resign on the issues that had him but it was given a new number i doubt that's correct that disturbed him and with nothing further then he changed his decision how do we know that it's a reversal we know by simply looking at the language of the two paragraphs when paragraph states that it is to be a calculated tax liability the second decision says that it is not to be account given a tax liability that is to be the actual tax it the first one says that it is not to be a payment or a settlement with the internal revenue service and the second one says that's exactly what it's supposed to be there is to be a payment now with regard to that first decision that first decision also intention to the clear light which are five point one b in the settlement agreement and i wasn't wasn't clear because the the but this calculation was supposed to do was to calculate the text associated with the adjustment to income that's exactly what the language says and that's what it was telling us to do a calculated tax liability in addition five point one big which the end of it tells us how it is that we ought to calculate not just the two gross that figure steps that why in this city but to calculate x which is the tax and what that says is the federal and state tax rates utilized to determine x y and that he said i understand that this is a calculated tax liability because realm of this is that this says that the tax is to be a blight on the adjustment to income now but it doesn't mean because it doesn't mean that it is supposed to iden he made his decision as to what five point one he meant not specific ways it purports to say that the contentions as they break them are as she is contentions but in fact they're not if you look at the contention that they put in their initial submission it talks ex he talks about grossing up and walking and and when the arbitrator issued his first award he addressed each of those contentions as they were framed by trans tech including  and also i think you need to look at the fact that trans tape itself made the statement that its tax liability defined is x in the agreement was fixed and final as set forth in the initial preparer certificate and it was fixed in final that statement is completely inconsistent with the position that trans tech is taking now and you also know that the position that transplant is taking now was taken only after the original award was entered before that time he never took the position that to go well what they did say also is that they thought they were going to win on the cancel issue and on the attorneys these issues so it wasn't necessary to be particularly precise with respect to the tax liability  you address more specifically what whether the the arbitrator in permission of a changed in the right i mean once you've you've outlined the reasons why why not but there are other arguments that were made in that entitle to a specific team and is that the paper state of five and eight or six in the appendix transit says a payment was to be made to waste management out of the insurance proceeds but only after trans tech received appropriate deductions and calculated amounts to protect it from its anticipated tax liabilities and we think that the only way you can interpret it that the interpret the phrase anticipated tax liabilities is to interpret it as the amount trans tech would overs it goes into what the actual tax liability was for those years i mean if they had the tax court considering the laws carry overs in determining what the liability was for those specific years and in fact it was applied interactively it doesn't change the fact that it went to determine what the tax liability for each particular year was what about the legal fees issue didn't the arbitrator select the war legal fees for purposes of that recovers you mean by applying the revised agreement was a correct of a retainer  right so as you can sign off on that time no not at all right so in effect a settlement agreement would not have been revised without your specific assent to that revision that's correct but  and as to the source of that money it was this it was a source of money with which they could pay at c n n and then the show for you coming in to take over the responsibility respect to clean up and cook can book that you were going to get their insurance proceeds whatsoever and that was the deal was there anything that was put into evidence at all as by way of attorney understanding so as to what all recoveries met that there was to be a division or no division between the two sides yes absolutely i mean not only yes he and i believe it was the fall of ninety seven a draft was exchanged between the parties that did away with any allocation between camps on can bob can just said that as he would take seventy percent seventy filings made no distinction between the can so it can work recoveries and it seems to me that was important to them to make that distinction they would have made it in their public disclosures but nothing nothing was mentioned  apply here and that was that he was to consider documentary submissions and if you felt that there was a factual dispute then it would be his decision to determine what he knew testimony no one disputes that that was the procedure so to testify about a particular issue that was never said and in all its subsequent filings after the with the center it's never told anybody what it wanted to put in that it wasn't allowed to put in we don't know what included in the calculations that were made first state in international are not insolvent they were solid insurance carriers that were included in the action who were not and sometimes the other issue that i wanted to raise with regard to the insolvent issue is that both parties understood before the action was initiated that the insolvent blooded market insurers had actually declare bankruptcy the wall before this equipment was entered into the