a factor in making that decision i actually believe under the analysis when there's a misappropriation of assets in corporate opportunities no particularly in this case where the issue is are they currently misappropriated they continue to hold the assets of the misappropriated they took over eighty two percent of the company's assets and transfer them to another company they own and they continue to hold that and so i think that i believe in i believe one of the winners now is no you don't have a job if he isn't profitable today you look at one of the misappropriation but even if you are considering the profitability today the issue is that the court was presented with the evidence sales and after my client said wait a second you can't make the arguments in this case that you made to dismiss mr williams claims because they're there for odds on the order they start taking those papers sales and transfer the money down to an entity they created because they're using the corporation's assets and employees by the law as a matter of law those of misappropriation of broken opportunities and they are just stopped from denying that they have misappropriated those opportunities and so when fifty six point in two thousand and twelve after he did that the fans took over four hundred thousand dollars over half the value of i designed and transferred it to their company as an after my client raises and they never gave notice to the border or to the shareholders but they were going to be paying rapt they've never put in evidence that those rent payments were fair and as we discussed in the brief the case law in illinois is if if  much class for the value and the plan is this is again it's when they talk about these you know it's a point of looking at that these are then there are words if you look and in this the response to the appeal i believe is a page seventeen they talk about the plan was that they were going to be returning his stock after the divorce they issued the stock if you can see him and then they're going to return william stock to him that there were lots of factual dispute and passionate issues presented to the trial or during them multiple hearings that were held on this issue the trial court waived the testimony we all know it's up to the to the trial judge to weigh the testimony and credibility of the witnesses  are in the best position to do so if they have the witnesses testifying for them at the time i some of the factual disputes that remained and that were present during the hearing were for example of the financial issue was the business profitable or w happens you should appoint a receiver if this happens you should not marry her instead of giving you the cases that i determine whether or not receiver is necessary and if the case is to determine whether a receiver is necessary the further states that there must be a present danger to the interests of the company is doing in this case a serious suspension of business and imminent danger ways i think that's why it was important to the child or the business was currently profitable and was carrying but be but certain liabilities of the company company in this upper hand to protect intelligence solutions that was done on the advice of one of the original attorneys and actually it was a practice that was the done before which at the guess that i have personally red flags and viruses that go on when companies start throwing off other companies where it's all the same people who are involved  and if it makes me want to look in the what's going on here all i'm in it i mean you're telling me that you're shifting liabilities brains into other companies and what the trial court is looking at is intelligent solutions itself is that correct correct in terms of determining whether an interim receiver is neither correct so basically what i asked side is doing is taking all the stuff that would suggest that an engine room receiver might be a good idea and putting them in something that i don't necessarily agree with and i say that because these companies were set up years and years and that's when they agree they would reduce mr williams interest in intelligent solutions to possibly put it back after a divorce was finalized there was no discussion about trying to defraud mrs williams or she they reduce his interest and then they decided to talk after his affairs in order to see what they would do in the meantime mr mr hewitt consulted with his an editor his attorney he said it would be fraud if you gave him his share the assets of the corporation given the current state of the parties i disagree that there are that i think that happened years and years ago necessarily weigh into the court's determination has the idea that it is to protect the court the current state of the corporation pending the outcome of litigation there is no evidence presented to the trial court that assets were going to be transferred to these other companies kept from intelligent solutions be my clients testify that everything up the other companies were all owned by intelligent solutions all their monies were paid to intelligent solutions so there was no present danger presented to the trial court that things were going to change or that my clients would take action in order thank you very much thank you so we talk about their search that there's no evidence that there is a threat a continuing harm the capers business a flagship product all those sales beginning in two thousand and thirteen fifty percent so there's not a difference between as my side before april of two thousand and nine when they started the plan to read to eliminate or to reduce mr williams so they can defraud his wife ok at that point they also transfer philly transaction if you don't give notice or you don't put in evidence at the right this fair that is a misappropriation of assets every wires that appointment of an interim receiver that isn't the waiter's case of the court elected not to even consider it is the only case on point because it's the only case that deals with misappropriation law to ignore what is in this appropriation so that they don't ever get to the analysis and that's not a factor they consider that is an abuse of discretion it's out of discretion is an error of law they can't do it and they did it