i these various yours but when you when you st start when dogs st told the bankruptcy court you were negotiating a settlement you you described it as something that would be a resolution of the motions including the motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding so wasn't it reasonable for the bankruptcy court to think that he would create the impression that this was resolving everything including the adversary proceeding is that the that the allows secure claim that was the centerpiece of the settlement is not actually allowed he makes the point that there that we didn't specify the abas ery of the fact the matter amazed th after three or four months of very contentious litigation the use of gen cas cast a lateral and clear on the record evidence that the projections the usa dogs had made to the bankruptcy court  dollars support an ad business to support a plan of reorganization and as part of that to relinquish its then pending objections to the use of cash collateral well hopefully the debtor would consummate his reorganization plan the centerpiece the only real true consideration for gem cab as part of that agreement was the was the agreement by us they dogs the gem caps claim would be would be allow and by allowed i mean that's a term of art it means objections are now way and so what the what the the empowerment is contending today and has been contending this for years because it didn't like the result of the settlement reached what's clear on the record on may th two thousand and eight seem clear on the record in the disclosure statement that the that are filed on june th two thousand and eighteen was that this agreement had multiple relied on the fact that allowed means allowed not allowed you haven't allowed secure claim but the but the debtor still gets to contest that claim later on if they don't like the result that's not a settlement that's going to of the on the part of jem ca and again i refer the court to the panel to the disclosure statement filed on june th two thousand and eighteen by the dad or the reorganization disclosure statement page four of that document defines what an allowed claim is and makes the point very specifically and i read directly from the record this is supplemental excerpts of the record for thirty three if your claim is not allowed claim it is a disputed claim and you will not be entitled to vote on the planet let the collateral continued to be used the fact of the matter is that as part of the settlement this is on the record for purposes of the may th two thousand and eighteen scratch transcript it's likewise in the disclosure statement jim campbell wanted to ensure that if the funder or the reorganization partner oh i j did not the posit the money that was going to fund the reorganization plan there would be an auction because gem has claim is now allowed that's in the record in the transcript it's in the disclosure statement so this was a multi pronged settlement gemco have wanted to ensure the money would be funded if it wasn't funded there would be an auction and again the may th transcript is somewhat revealing  i took pains to make clear to the chord that there was an element of the over all over arching dispute between jem kat a debtor and its principles that was not part of the settlement that is specifically guarant of it that wasn't relevant to the bankruptcy court because the guarantors were not before it so all disputes before the bankruptcy court with respect to the claims between jem tath and the debtor were necessarily concluded on may th and again not to harp on the same language but allowed means allow and we contemplated and put on the rack heard and it's in the debtor's disclosure statement what would happen if in fact this reorganization plan collapse which it mr obvious reference to june th revealing for what he did not say the fact the matter is that on june th double diamond distribution which is a company owned by steve mann who is act with or is the owner of the debt or hearing today that the allowed secure claim was actually subject to to dispute and this toronto we have this cited in the our brief on page forty two dollars it specifies the fact that the adversary objected to the jam cap claim and the entire premise of our opposition to that motion was that we had an agreement and there be no absolutely no purpose for gem have to enter into the agreement it entered into th two thousand and eight saying by the debtor is clear and emphatic you don't get to bid if you're not allowed claim so in june th you have the bankruptcy court affirming the clear importance of the settlement that have been reached namely that allowed claim means there are no further disputes to the amount of the claim which was compromised by gen x then the auction occurred on june th we went through a lengthy negotiation process that result sales order which is also in the record the sale order which was negotiated in part by the debtor agreed to by the debtor a paragraph you makes very specifically clear the gem have has allowed secured claim of four million three  dollars that's the amended excerpts of the record on page three or four that is july th two thousand and eighteen and then still there is an effort to unwind this settlement and judge a barrel ultimately did what was inevitable and that is that she granted the motion to dismiss the adversary which we didn't think we would have to file i mean there's this question raised to let me answer it about why that the ad was very was not dismissed ed and quite frankly there was a lot of material on the docket that day and what we were principally concerned with was not something that was obviously waived and dismissed as a result of the settlement but rather what's go right to proceed later and contest the amount of the claim that's a disputed claim and no matter how many ways they tried to slice this apple we get back to the same issue is they want this to be something other than allowed claim and they've come up with all sorts of arguments about whether it was conditioned on the consummation of the of the reorganization plan that's divide by the record of the may th two thousand and seventeen transcript and the june th two thousand and eighteen disclosure undermines the clear import of the settlement which was there isn't a there is a claim there's been a dispute so the claim that claim is now allowed that is a very clear term that has very clear legal implications there should be no ambiguity about that i will be very blunt with you it was not something that was really under consideration once the claim was allowed it was just assumed that the adversary was gone and there was a lot on the record i mean we were dealing with several matters were dealing  collateral issue and the real there was one outstanding issue that took a fair bit of time to negotiate and you'll see on the from the transcript i may th we take a multitude of breaks in the one issue we were trying to negotiate not the term of the settlement as to whether or not there be an option in the event that declined to fund on june th two thousand and eighteen but when that auction would be and when we were taking breaks our local council had an office across the street we were convenience of the office and trying to negotiate we alternately came back and decided we'd have to let john barrow determine when the auction was occur but that was the issue that was principally in dispute on may th two thousand and eight and the simple answer your question is nobody contemplated that we would need to include language such as the adversaries presently dismissed once the claim was allowed it was obvious they were agreeing to the amount of the claim and it wouldn't be necessary  if knowing now in october of two thousand and twenty that we'd still be arguing this yes i wish i put that on the record but but to be fair that in no way undermines the clear import of the settlement from our perspective and other questions