receiver on march first of two thousand and two and that was approved by the district hearten june of two thousand and two and then the other is to approach it from the perspective of the stuff in the member distribution plan that was approved by the court approximately a year remaining against the receiver they were at point entitled to receive the a distribution from with respect to what it is if they were to receive it automatically they would get it it was automatic that that they would get it and the basis for determining the amount of the distribution to them was  perspective in that agreement the american funeral plaintiffs assigned all of their claims against most of the defendants or virtually all of their claims against most of the dependents to the other planets group unknown and it wasn't labeled settlement proceeds and in the final document which was the plan settlement proceeds do not have any description of what might have happened in this stock that is correct and in fact  came from some of these so there's another accounting thing that would remain later maybe if even if you had to discard there's another accounting possibility and how use how would you do with those settlement throws that if you reserve some cla and that's my point so as far as the settlement proceed you released all claims against what you describe some of those and you assign whatever rights you may or may not have whatever those rights  going to greet there's a specific length today dude and there is some specific language where there was an anticipated that you would have something further relative when you started serving those that yeah it was anticipated that the forty's would be free when it came from the various parties again on our investments fifty million dollars of that money were available to the participating plaintiffs sure that money was available then that money would be paid to us as well essentially what it them and the only point of all those years i've never been to look at any dark determine what ten million dollars just and yet in the plan they're forced to disclose it even though there's no guessing they should have been blood money it could have been just good old goodwill it could have been leveraged windows but it's been identified by the judge and interpret into documents without tying the two documents together in any way with regard to the definition of settlement proceeds that these are s million of the one point nine million it was not disclosed and in fact you couldn't come to a settlement because they disputed from what if you want to bring extraneous mike off on the record they disputed the methodology in the way you were settling with the defendant so are you did it's get them out of the picture the best that i can tell from this agreement is you go away we'll give you ten minute we can proceed against the defendants and we'll get our money would you go away for ten million you go away and we'll give you what you think your share of this  some of which didn't resonate in the end at the end of the day of course as in the prior appeal most of the legal provisions people have taken have been taken to maximize the distribution to a particular individual client which is certainly the case here the reason these to whatever distribution plan or adopt it the court adopted a distribution plan that may just be musicians based on a net gain of claims and made them correct and there was a very specific limited exception for people to defined going into the distribution plan and taking those proceeds has to be appropriated has to be set off by amounts of they've already received a trend that's sort of an edict that has to be done you're ignoring what do we do with the oregon law sentiment that they will not be paid at all unless that all men are funded and that what and by the way that was not a small amount the settlement that had to be funded would have been at a minimum thirty seven million dollars at a maximum of six as it with the settlement agreement making that assumption where does the district court and the receiver get the authority to nor the terms of the contr t i guess the only way i can answer that is that we're not ignoring the terms of the contract the contract was not entered into in a vacuum