meeting the district court's decision as well as p g c's provision position in this case is that the attorneys have simply earned enough in this case we believe th that was why the wrap up agreement contained a condition yes against that prevention doctor who would apply our position is that the phrasing of the attorneys fees provision that the attorneys in a fair get paid when the benefits are paid to the claimants it is a claims made policy mostly in class actions here attorneys are asking for a percentage of the common fund that total fun we didn't do that here we try to align our interests in ensuring that the parties found beneficiaries and paid down and th two we have problems through two thousand and seven magistrate judge robinson orders that these issues and processing go back to something called has been which is this settlement or so at in two  all you had with the wrap up agreement itself in terms of what you might be entitled to by way of attorneys for going forward when conditional and we believe in regard to misinterpreting the contract as a whole if i can go to that quickly the district court burden not reading the agreement as a whole and looking at parent conditional language in sa pages one and two of them wrapped up an agreement because i went back to read them and i see the general description but where where do you pick up this condition claims made says p v c is to use the standards used by the sona director and so we pick up between two thousand and two and two thousand and seven but they're not they're adding a bunch of different conditions which is not disputed that the settlement director is not followed so that goes to the contract issue and it also goes to the prevention doctor and they were preventing  with the agreement and so under the contract theory their view is we could have not paid for ten years and we're still in a so the district court says well but i look at what actually was happening during this period and a lot of claims were being paid and there was some drop off but as an explanation as to why  that's not the standard the standard is substantially hinder or contributed materially and the banks you're on the provision yes sir i'm on your honor  don't have to be that be the condition is we get paid when the claimants get paid that's the condition we can't get paid until they process and make payments what they did in the record it is undisputed that hundreds of people were identified prior to twenty thirteen in fact prior to twenty  performing because you had nothing to perform at that point the prevention doctrine says one party prevents the other party from performing and you had nothing to perform except to collect attorney's fees no we wrap up agreement to the extent that corporation was not applying the standards that were sent or on pages one and two we were board forever the boring to make these decisions about is the corp properly applying the standards in the wrap up agreement correct in this sense are they complying with the agreement and then what happens then what to go find the people we had already failed really notice them and allow them to collect the payments that's why if you look at our chart the payments are a huge in two thousand and two in two thousand and three in part because a settlement director was involved prior to the transfer over it drops significantly there's twenty four to twenty eight months of no payments in this time period then come twenty thirteen when they finally fund to relocate or project but only to detain of two hundred fifty thousand dollars and fast carol tokenism day his own pocket for two hundred fifty thousand dollars more do we really firing folks hundreds of folks the vast majority of folks that p b g c simply had not processed and paid and then twenty five here's the prevention as of two thousand and seven the issue of breach is supposed to go back in two thousand and nine the parties agreed to the relocate our project from two thousand and morning can i ask you a question of time is eight percent a normal class action attorneys three percentage i don't know i just wondered is that something that   correct and so in two thousand and nine that's when the party or what the corporation agreed to this relocate or ever it was never set in stone i think the parties were going back and forth with respect to the locator on things on in the wrap up agreement there's a three to three year period locat or fee agreement which was extended extended by let me let me go back and forth so i understand when the magistrate said in that case back to the board the board was supposed to resolve all these disputes at some point did not the parties understand that the corporation was going to make this real locator effort and devoted a million dollars to it that but the two thousand to seven by two thousand decision by the magistrate where things are referred back to the ca wrapped with other issues still pending before the magistrate not issues pending before the magistrate there are issues that are still pending before the district court and that are you know i don't understand this there was this argument as i understood it that the attorneys had identified people had a list of people and for whatever reason those people were not their claims were not being paid and you heard counsel say the corporation refused to give you turkeys the data that is incorrect what class council sites that are his own declarations that is not true in two thousand over there was no million dollar relocate or commitment by the corp there was never commitment in stone in two thousand there was i don't need it in stone sure  i needed to know whether the parties reached the agreement and either the magistrate judge or the board understood that or it was just something between the parties and now it was just something between parties it was nothing that was ever all right now what is your think anything was ever i mean there's a locator fee project which was extended between the parties because that's what makes sense at the time due to the locator fee was was well locators for go out and search for individuals who found that's with it we're still within this ten year period correct the passage of time in this case i think it's important to remember the class members that we identify at this point unfortunately a lot of them are deceased so who we are paying our descendants  of the class members so what your course means that we then addition to having to track individuals down we have to make sure that who we have is the right person that is indeed entitle to  project that initially was supposed to i mean if i go through that record again well i find that in two thousand and nine that the parties agreed that the corporation was going to make these locator efforts i don't think it would i think that's hard to locate  kanal two hundred fifty thousand dollars a status report to the district court in two thousand and nine did it make any commitment about locat i don't believe right now my memory just doesn't i can't remember to be quite honest when i was reading the breeze now first time a status report was mentioned when i looked at the status report there was no complaint about what the corporation was doing correct all right it was a report here's how many people have pain etc current then later on there's a subsequent status report where there is a complaint and all i'm trying to figure out is whether that within this ten year period or there was some other agreement between the parties right i think the complaint started after the ten year period our position is that class council had ten years to come forward he had options if he felt that class members were not being paid he had ten years to come forward he could have run a p a action on behalf of his clients these each member each member of the class is represented by c people had been found by them by now and then by then by the time we reached the wrapup agreement its own her one hundred seventeen thousand when the district court order came down oh it's over one hundred twenty five thousand ok and within the ten year period there me a great deal of progress was made because by the time we get to two thousand and ten ninety six percent of the class had been found and paid so a great deal of in any way similar so the corporations decision is that the wrap up agreement entitle players council to eight percent for this ten year period that after that  in twenty thirteen the corporation agreed to pay two hundred fifty thousand dollars to class council in connection with further efforts to locate so any money that class council decided to spend over that two hundred fifty thousand dollars was simply a voluntary act on behalf of glas order to come up with that million dollar agreement that you could you see was not willing to agree to so that was never crystallized when it was reported to the court in a status agreement it was in the process of being worked out it was never fin is in the record ha now i said you know i read it right where where is any complaint about the cooperations writing it's something like that are not following the standards well that came in briefing prior to two thousand and seven you you'll notice in status reports starting in two thousand and four leading up to the motion to refer this to kaz b that were complaining  to case b for a determination of the pending administrative issues related to the parties compliance with the wrap up agreement that was the point of the referral back and instead of allowing that compliance audit to obligation to work with now to get to find these people they did not from the project it was only after twenty thirteen after me asians because they had not paid to start this at the two hundred fifty thousand dollars t turns on we really go find people we put in our own money and twenty five million dollars flows out of the tap at that point after the ten year period this contract should be interpreted in light of the intent of the parties which was not to put us at the mercy of p g c not paying number one and number two the dark turn of prevention of klaas thank you