initially paid to the manufacturer by the wholesaler this record specifically found that does not include any additional profits but the manufacturers call back after a price increase and as noted the statute itself specific he was concluding that the so called price of crude credits were not part of revenue and therefore i b m in this specific circumstance was the even the manufacturers in their agreements say specifically defining place increases on the name and torrie as being a place appreciation credit so in other words you could call a price increase whatever you want to call it but if you raise prices and you take the money and you put it in your own pocket that's price but but you were suggesting that the district court erred by concluding something that no one guardian i'm suggesting that he he didn't say this that and that is static he was saying in this particular case because i am not considering that the price krishi she credits are he dition all revenue or an additional price which directly from the opinion is and has not include both any additional profits manufactures call back after price increase so he did buy that at a stack that uses that word but he said it and is the fine respectfully fit to know that the law is not and it is not defined by the perspective of the whole seller weeks old perspective of epis how much money did the manufacturer get paid for the drought especially already here that there's a slight of hand the manufacturers raise prices they call back that money for the price increases they put it in a pocket and over here relate the price the money from the purchaser to the manufacturer it was always clear to every one of these defendants that when you get paid money for a drug that sample yet they took that money and  would argue that size just like everyone else we just happen to have some more information about the side and we did the other defendants the bottom line is we had the dates of the contracts we have the signatures of the executives we had rich detail as district court found that we met by a day with regard to this which detail of what's in the contracts how the price appreciation causes work that dates of the place increases at the manufacturer's issued the utilization by medicaid of the drugs price increase but happens is manufacturer gets a million dollars distributed strongest and then at the end of the period distributor gets the fifty thousand dollars and service fee but say there is a price increase and when it's applied to the inventory that the manufacturer has on hand and started at the distributor has on hand it causes the inventory to appreciate in value by twenty five thousand dollars now the credit checks and says we're going to keep twenty five thousand dollars distributor but we're going to use it we're going come back and say no we're going to make you do this under amp to credit this against your average monthly price if the government said we need c m s have determined that you should start treating this including it as  warranty and he does not automatically benefit the defendant this is a really complex regulatory area and the supreme court actually talked about this very question in the astra case which we said in our correctly decided that money they paid to the wholesalers for services should be excluded from man and we don't take issue with the notion of one to claim that place increases but think about it this is what the defendants did they executed these contracts and said we keep the profit if we raise prices before back they recess they claw back the money not this is not money going from them way of paying distributors had to do with trying to get them to stop stockpiling drugs because that might be have a lot of implications to the public and raided a specific contract that appeared to be addressing that very issue saying if you have if there's a price increase for stock that you were peddling had for between this many and this many months you get keep the price increase but if it's every time of the suppressing producer not for the same services but the question is so we don't find it mr scheck is fine with the notion of the manufacturers taking that money back that that i'll try the question is