not that's not the issue we have here because joe some stranger to the bankruptcy proceeding is not the defendant in this case this case the complex is a stranger from bankruptcy proceeding technically speaking now well no he isn't not only is he a party that that's wise in the face of capital so if you if the court agrees that the fact that the assignment is illegal or does not it is contrary to the law in that a bankruptcy trustee which a liquidating trust corporate veil of deal x and holding blix up responsible for these nos saying that they were not know they were distributions and the notes we're seeing now in this case in the b l s confirmation the whole plan is to sue mr blitzer again on these are different and why the standing issue comes in with regards to the the site the improper signed it had there been no improper signing b l s would or would not have pursued mr blix up and therefore mr limitations is that the bankruptcy trustee can only go after property of the claims of the estate and claims belong to the debtor it cannot take assignments from other creditors or other states and then pursue those and for that for that reason alone but then if you take a look at the next step down which is how much of a claim has been allowed even the trustee even the liquidating trustee of the elex case could explain why he only claim that he was pursuing this claim against mr blitzer he couldn't explain why he just didn't say instead of forty million whatever the a p fourteen judgment turns out to be that's the claim you're allowed in in the in the bankruptcy case  he could never explain the rationale for not for not doing not even judge cursor was kind of puzzled by although he ultimately approved it so between the sign of the click or held with regard to this it simply is we don't have any concrete we don't have the concrete claims right now until hopefully the the central district case is reversed for and then and then we would have claims for attorneys fees we'd have  as agents because a call it includes not only the professionals which is the quasar judicial munni that we discussed yesterday but also the specifics of for example the liquidating trust and that's the real  bankruptcy plan allowing it was addressed on the merits of course part of that is the plan but the overall question here is not whether or not the plan was entered everybody admits the plans and for the question is whether or not that plan was appropriate in other words could  was not much your honor in our view the escalation cause here is narrow it has to do with the actions of the trustee and his agents in in essence getting the plan adopted and the like which is important to note here turning then i did want to finish up on the assignment i just wanted to know if we were to consider the merits there's a very important difference between this case and kaplan or williams or any of the case simon order yesterday because that could have been appeal is why i think the court erred in allowing the a finite amount of forty million dollars rather than just say whatever the amount of the ag fourteen clean is because they're both based on the same notes they should have this is this is what i challenge that assignment was through the confirmation  determinations on that issue litigation and if that were improper he would not be involved in litigation and if the litigation to combat that well that means that he wishes it had been different but why does that give him a legal right corporation oh yes no i think i think it's i'm not sure it's a good analogy in this case but it does go i would think to the corporate authorization standing at the corporation to bring the action as a party if the corporation is not authorized properly to lack of will vote on many different times i think that's raised in the litigation when a corporation hasn't hasn't of properly authorized the commencement or the defense of a lawsuit and don't think so i mean let's say let's say you live in the corporation although of course you know there's oftentimes a challenge on drill bit of standing and so forth which kind of impacts upon a third party raising the defenses of a corporation but i think in this case it's it's  assignment of the claim to a creditor by virtue of it being a having had filed a group of claim in the and the bankruptcy even though they were the target of the harm was going to be the target that they were the was already over that point because when the plane was confirmed that was the time that we had to challenge anything that was going on inside the plane i thought right we had already been we don't even suit the assignment took place let's say september one and we were sued october if we went in there and challenge the sign at the time assuming for the sake of argument that it's a final appeal border which i i i believe that there's arguments on both sides but assuming that we were agreed at that time it was just an assignment of of of a