shares is not tied to whether or not koz there is actually receiving commission of fees from those farmland commitments of t i a credit i realize it's an odd argument in some sense no longer managing those accounts remez position is that he had been working on this t r a preference vestment package for a long time and that he was looking for a method of compensation that justified his past efforts and what he wanted he realized he was going to be able to get to the extent that jesus commissions were called the t c fees which is the st part of he was going to be able to get those because calculate those as they came in but then there was a risk because of the way he had been treated they are they would no longer they would get rid of that aspect of the business  and he would lose out he would be the party that had the most to lose if the farm and investment portfolio t i a chris left the business and so here a language inserted in the business in the for a contract was for so long make sure i say it right now for so long as there is any business relationship any form of business relationship now he considered that a safety valve because that meant that it was as decided that they wanted to take that farm management portfolio crap and move it away that they would have to do one of two things one they'd have to completely to commissions and fees received when played for best position is that that sentence is correct it tells everybody why he doesn't get a base salary but t and i think this record shows he's asked for financial records that underlie these crimes under the contract which says he's entitled to an accounting but also seeking discovery and he spent the night in every night ok and so ok so play the requested discovery yes and it was then i'm going to most of us that it was opposed by the defendant and the not but the denial of extent that there's criticism of the plaintiff for the detail effect that he should allege that that's part i think of the discussion in the case of the nd theory was regarding an account of precessing a count ed in two thousand and six for which he received had received no compensation that he discovered after he entered into the two thousand and seven contract and that is the nine three there was a consulting contract in which posey and ken bruce and plaintiff for men were partners of ken bruce had ties to the teacher retirement system to the h vermette was to receive a percent bruce was to receive eight percent or twelve percent and they were identified in an exhibit a and to the extent that bruce brought additional so the contract was to be amended a now of course two thousand and seven has the language says the general language that all prior agreements are superseded and this is the now the only agreement although it does have language  have been paid and he's been told that he is not he's not going to get that from the source of the right to the accounting is that the seven agreement yes it's in your seventy three and what does it say that's the language of the agreement is the defense argument is that we haven't explicitly event to fight the accounts again our position is we have many able to review our chance the position the vermette has is that it's not equitable to allow the defendant to breach the contract and then stand on the position that you're not allowed one to do the review of your clients that the contract says you're allowed to review and to even if you file a bonuses and our position has been that that affidavit standing alone is doesn't mean anything if we're not allowed to review the compensation records of employees i know there was one aspect where he indicated he would grant us discovery that was at the motion to reconsider of we had we had determined that we felt that the complaint on its face probably stay process of action and we did not  made and denied september on september th page in the court and in the court denied it saying it is you're asking for a limited discovery in cook county posing counsel says timing is not an it has with various investors this is a current employee employer that has been there throughout the entire time period yet he could not state one fact to support the allegation that he didn't get a production large office you would think he would have some facts to suggest that he didn't get a bonus payment that everyone else received and yet he hasn't alleged it so the court was correct to dismiss it's absurd that they're sitting here asking to be awarded eighty thousand shares kozik for new farm land their brief and i just wanted to point out that they do not want to read the st paragraph of the compensation provision but it's there and it says employees compensation here under shall be based sole dispute and i also want to point out the st account the so called t i a account is the st sentence defines the account it says with regard to any agreement between those th we have no control so the court was correct in dismissing that count it was dismissed twice by two to trial judges st time the judge dismissed it justifies dismissed it without prejudice it came up again no additional discovery was requested strictly on the language of the agreement and the language of the important agreement in the complaint the same the rd woman and it was dismissed again this time with prejudice because saying that they're entitled to accounting under the agreement the language i think that you are asking about phase two of the agreement where it says you get an accounting with respect only to t c fees it's a nd paragraph of the top of page the accounting that they would be entitled to if any would be out for t c fees and interest only enough they have not alleged a breach of the t c fee provision they now have said in their pep in their pleading in an allegation about p c fees as part of the remit they also said they also gave allegations about the t r a s account for example b but when it came time to would be entitled to there is no other provision or basis for it so i hope that answers a question with respect to account the what i was going to say is if if the language of the remit wasn't customary here a reading you would get stuck if you generated compensation for your employer then you adopt that over a reading that would be inequitable unusual based on that allegation and the clear language of foresee he is not entitled to any compensation for a good period and with respect to any  council did not address what the phrase any form of business relationship with a preference affiliate means and every other paragraph and every other provision regarding compensation to plaintiff are met it's tied to the payment of missions or fees this paragraph which is additional compensation says that that compensation is due so long as there is any form of business relationship counsel didn't address that off why is that there what does it mean future and i put this provision in there to protect myself regarding these farm land commitments this isn't about compensation for the future about this farm i'm perfectly ok this is for all the work that i've done that i' features it applies to this every client that he has brought to the front to the firm thank you