is a whether some monies owed by the sub contractor by the contractor belonged to the estate of the sub contractor who filed for the legal grounds on which the bankruptcy court determined that they were not and thus the rest of the causes of action were dismissed as well and we request difference as well which was that these surety or the owner of the project completed the whole project and at the end the amounts retain were less than  expended by the surety or the contractor and that we think that it is inappropriate to do that because the language of section five forty one is supposed to be as  work that was done and that earned income to insight and at the time of the filing the invoice for that particular period of time which was from november made in accordance with the contract in other words rather than being money available to be a state they were subject to the conditions stated in the contract because they they were going to be paid only after everything had been set without doesn't mean that they were not going to be paid other words you know we can see the point on the contract that watch says you all your subsequent tractors fifty thousand dollars but the amount that was supposed to be paid to insight was in excess of one hundred admission was a factual admission and a payment had not yet been made it was not a concession that you were in breach except now and so since you haven't conceded it was in breach on your admission then it was  which is ultimately we are mandated to make this payment yes we have not yet made it correct and you reserved on the question implicitly as to whether you had a mandate to make that payment at that rest of the other cases and that is where we want to make this engine because in those particular cases as i stated before you know first the terminations rather than us don't have exact language on the  confuses the record because what we're talking about is some of that hadn't been paid for money's already paid to incite these are passed to obligations these are an obligation is for monies hope to gained by insight down the road so when they file for bankruptcy and eventually get the contract assume subject to the stipulation that they make good on the  the bankruptcy court at that point in time the clock started ticking the seventy two hour an eight notice under eight point one when insight declare them in the fog and you know admittedly things got put on hold due to the stay once the contract out of soon and the balance of the seventy two hours expired they had an obligation to cure that the fault before any monies came due in that way and at the time they did not and they were put on notice that not only did they not cure the fault but in the march ninth letter to insight from walsh they made clear that at that time based upon walsh's supplementation of the workforce is and its projection of amounts not paid by insight that insight was actually one hundred eighty thousand  rough dollars in arrears beyond any payout locations that have been submitted after they went into bankruptcy so for money's not to yet so walsh obviously the court  not necessarily relevant much to the detriment of walsh in that it had to expend considerable funds for insight and insights failure i'm sorry and insights surety failure to step in and remedy the situation they had an opportunity they had a window after they got the assumption of the contract either by insight directly to pay the subs there although you know there's a list in the record of all the depositions we t solids and suppliers to this you know both the code and the contractor supposed to protect from this happening not being paid again all relating to obligations that that accru satisfy these defaults and get the project back yard using insight as the contractor fact that insight didn't have the funds is no surprise to anybody if you if you look at the circumstances in which the court considered the you're representing them it was a set of work done by insight or was all of which was paid for here's a set of work to be done but that work were never correct is there also a set of work that insight you need from waltz that wallace has not yet  there or is no money do under any payout what i thought i understood yes there is payout locations that post date bankruptcy that relates to work that absent them thousand seven thousand dollars of work that incites already done or was and your position as to why that need not be paid out of the contract is not that the suppliers the material none of that amount of work have been paid it's that because we had to supplement their forces were on a v a project in the hospital right it's a rehabilitation well under the contract in the circumstances washington has the ability under  if there was an accounting sent to insight on march ninth the provided them with the breakdown of the hundred eighty thousand dollars that went in excess of the four fifty so that wasn't fashion what was going on they were they were already over extended the on watch could have turned around and paid that for fifty seven and it would have exasperated th the situation by six hundred thousand dollars more or seven hundred thousand dollars more it would have been the one eighty plus the four fifty seven but they were saying was it if you look at the exhibits there are saying as of the twenty ninth march ninth that listen listen this is how far behind you are because a bunch of other subs came along and a bunch of other work need to be supplement to when i stand here i don't want to say we all and there might be an exception is somebody who didn't come were you there are some contractors solves to incite and they have sat on their rice or otherwise didn't do it you know i don't know i only know what's in the records as far as that goes but certainly in the instances where walsh had an independent obligation that would have fell upon  no allegation and nothing is in the record that suggests my insight seeking to recover is just that incremental portion certainly not