remain an m c i employee unless and until he was ever able to return to work which never happened well the short answer is m c i was the lead plaintiff here but it was part of this we were called the world com empire that went could on the on the breach of contract piece and that part of it the facts really aren't all that complicated because the separation agreement that governs mr healy's claim for four severance pay which we concede but the stock options and the i experience which we don't concede is relatively straightforward there isn't a whole lot in it that deals with it it's clear from looking at it it's a contract between m a meaningful guidance there in particularly in section one point three of the separation agreement there's one sentence that pertains to the stock options and what it says its employees will be permitted to exercise stock options so we contend and we try to argue it you know effectively in our brief that that both the play and in the agreement leave no room for interpretation that they both if you become disabled if you become disabled then until you return to work there is no vesting of your stock options will talk about progra i thought there was an express agreement that option's invested something like sixty days after terminations that's why this record is so confusing your honor you're right but you're in the wrong you're in the wrong which is approximately six hundred thousand dollars a truck agreement different terms as i just mentioned about what happens when you're on disability and they would have continued to that's why he was on disability anyway m c i clearly messed up by not releasing hi terms forget about the separation agreement just in the normal course they should have been released in february march of two thousand contrary to those terms he didn't release them as mr healy put it tom squires excuse in january of ninety nine but after that breach they should have been released anyway thirteen months later and and in looking at the measure of damages something happened in between my client had no power over that it caused us to examine what are the damages from the breach of the separation agreement and i would suggest to the court that we have the benefit of the bargain on the separation agreement is to give mr healey the value of the accelerated receipt of those shares in other words the separation agreement gave them to gave them to him thirteen months earlier in the benefit of that bargain is to look at what they would have been worth then and compare it to what they would have been worth thirteen months later when in the normal course he would have gotten  problem with this case and what's so screwy is if you do that the number is different because in that thirteen months the stock without any other screwy thing about this case this then not long thereafter the opening brief is quite similar in that like in that case where the where the state park california was responsible for testing grading and deciding to pass the state party the grading of that exam the cracking of that exam the deciding of who passes and who fails is caused by another party and this is not exactly that but it's very similar notion to to what we are arguing now the natural question is that is there anything that he asks i mean i would concede the outcome might be different if if the system house or or anyone other than m c i might have created some confusion saddled with with insuring mr healy's investment decisions they were worth a certain amount of a given point in time in any measure of damages doesn't allow that when you're talking about stock occurred to me as i was studying to get ready to talk to you that highlights why prejudgment interest isn't appropriate in that is beyond everything we said in our brief it occurred to me that even this evidence on this but mr healy's calculation is that it would be three hundred ninety eight thousand dollars so that was at one point in time the number at the start of the trial i believe it was five hundred sixty thousand dollars and if you look on the last day of trial it was we calculated more shares were at it and it jumped up to six hundred ninety four thousand which is the number that you see in the court's order that's just pretty darn good evidence that that this isn't  know was trying to cheat yes by not paying mr hill we also know that two hundred sixty four thousand dollars in credit was went from i'm sorry whatever system house is called today still exists as a corporate entity no during all the time that we're involved yes but ok great during all times relevant to this case it eight there's no there's no real difference to through that at the time a new one was made they knew that mr healey was going out on disability they knew he had to he'd make that extremely clear then up front there's a there's all sorts of e mails on that issue that we provided so so and even though the court found that by march of the one nine hundred ninety nine three months later they should have been sold he should have had his money they're claiming that well m c i also made a mistake and  until july of ninety nine and we have one of our exhibits we've put clearly our brief is the fact that he was able to get two hundred forty eight thousand dollars more than anybody expected during this time that he was forced to be on thousand dollars never ask for a penny ok the stock option issue what they want you to do is ignore the court's fin either use the agreement reads a separation agreement reads it paragraph one point three employee you will be permitted to exercise stock option grants in accordance with m c i stock  so you know basically they're doing everything they can to to keep him from getting everything single thing he's got got to multibillion dollar have done in july of ninety nine when the customer pinney had they done the right thing by this man because the stock was still up and they terminated but they continued with the story of we can't terminate you because you're on disability do with it the contracts were between m c i and mr healy and it is true that m c i blew it twice january of ninety nine and again thirteen months later what i am saying is responsibility that we may have caused the above at the first time but in the normal course of that it never happened if there had been no separation agreement he would have gotten all that