the case so you're not arguing to somebody up the boat all right we did not come to love this for that all right let's proceed thank you your honor and may please the court my name is michael pollan as i indicated i represent  every piece of civil litigation ultimately boils down to a couple simple quest who consume a home for what when do you do it  this case raises fundamental legal issues and each of those points so we raise several matters of law that frankly go to you could have been raised and should have been raised well raised but were not were not granted back in two thousand and had the proper rulings been made on those matters of law that refile this case two thousand this court would this case whether it was the one nine hundred ninety eight original case the two thousand and four casts the two thousand case where the case that was ultimately decided by the jury is and always has been about alleged diversions assets and business opportunities that belong to a limited liability company of each other trading in our in illinois claims for usurpation of a business a member a limited liability company may have standing in a derivative capacity to sue for that injury to a limited liability company but as you may recall in two thousand and nine when this case was previously yet it wasn't done in a trial occurred in that trial i could go through the factual we don't have to we already went back about why minus assignment theory that was conjured up after this court's two thousand and nine decision doesn't carry the day and even if they're working if there could be such an assignment which it can't be under the  injury so there isn't you know what i'm concerned with in this case personally i'm interested in is the release the legal effect of that some trite phrase that i don't attribute to mr reagan but yet some some phrases like that other was a lot of legal authority but actually what they said is that b b release is the and ours this claim because the derivative suit agreement and release were were reduced to object and other some question in the courts mind perhaps about whether a settlement agreement reduced a judgement carr undo this transaction needed to rescind the releases he set out to do in the two thousand cases never carried religion infile it to forty one think about how fundamentally different this case judge who oversaw first case could make any determinations about what is different so you avoid kind of looking for a different judge that this case promotes the court says there's no need to go case indicating that in the late summer of one nine hundred ninety nine he knew about all the allegedly with health facts that is within the two year statute of limitations set forth in section to with that entire two year period the lapsed before the two thousands of the settlement agreement release was march fourth one thousand ninety eight so it was file two and a half years later and september two thousand let us claim was followed by the two fourteen zero one statute of limitations which is why they issued in and quite boldly proclaim to the tr they didn't have to go through so they were never quite sure roger c o meant they were never had they never had to make the showing before actual size due diligence even though at the time the settlement agreement was represented two lawyers with them they shoot any available discovery to him in the one nine hundred ninety eight case and they would not have been able to do that so we think that had two fourteen zero one been applied there additional reasons other than what we can talk about today what would have won that case but even had it and even had the judge had ruled the other way that would have proceeded is what we indicated in the thompson versus this settlement agreement would have been vacated the consideration released the money we paid would not have been used to fund the litigation against us vanes settlement agreement would have been released the order would have been released and this case would have been action for settlement fraud in illinois in other richardson case the supreme court wrote in their opinion that the plaintiff in that case ask them to recognize a new cause  i don't think this court should do what the illinois supreme court has previously declined to do all sorts of potential considerations but it was it was the  release tyrolese different case the the stock purchase agreement specifically excluded from release and that's how are these contemplated that deal and he comments about fraud in the things outside of the release and relates to the circumstances under which the release was entered into as opposed to or let me ask you this maybe you could educate me said i don't need an educat first you have to return the money he's sorry you have to rescind the release you can't keep the money he's the benefit of the money he's and still proceed and on a fraud case well recognize the the alternative remedy option which is to fund release and to sue for the four off so in richardson what the court did which was very interesting to me the court  examine this cause of action to some length and then set because it was not led in that case that therefore they didn't have to reach that question and they said it was side they said one more closer to this case and i just like see how you're going to get around with black case we have to file it with the supreme court says here but the supreme court didn't reject  this type of cause of action where we are honing in on the fraud that was the same with the supreme court is saying to me and maybe you know i still catch it that oh that's why i want you to educate same shit when you have a release and you get the money somebody who's got a what eleven million dollar verdict here we don't take it likely if we have to reverse such a thing we only do it when we are required to do it but the question becomes the case law as i see it and maybe i'm wrong that's why we have these are like human sometimes i learned from the lawyers that i'm wrong and i want you to be able to be able to show me that i'm wrong how do you get around  how do you get around the fact that here's here a man that kept the money and didn't rescind his release i mean that's the problem is i see it i mean you know you could you could take up at pencil and call it an elephant if you call circuit case again not in illinois case but nonetheless i think expressive of what's printed under this theory which is recognized around the country the court release that's the only thing that bothers me grab an answer to all the other ish i can't find an answer to that one course of action to be at the time of the execution released in this case deals with things that occurred in the settlement agreement you know in the time of the settlement conference t a was organized and took place here at a time when these people were operating as partners when they were operating as individuals so that's the claim of laws that we are we are  pursuing and not something that was included within the release and not something that was along to see today and our cause of action is simply a normal obligations of one set of partners or those to another and soon as a simply example where the case was permitted to remain dismissed and the partners were permitted to have proceed and sooner if there is a sense and sense which says that the have a gatekeeping function but it's mainly to see if there is a recognized basis for that at the rose three existed and we believe that putative damages were wrongfully taken away from us and w thank you thank your on the release issue there is no way around those cases you do have to return to return the money and you have to rescind the lease and let's not  burden of proof to set it aside it exists here today until mr reagan argued a couple minutes ago we never heard an argument why this claim fell outside the police because they were to sue the whole time mr reagan also that and now we have read your response that you're sure that there's nothing more than what you've already told us yet the only point i would say is you know i won't rehash all but in this case of course the and convincing evidence and and in any punitive damage case i would submit that we would be allowed much more latitude about the full moral force of the evidence we had about the reason why we term explain why i understand that and i think the more up procreated way to do that would be for you to file a motion if you want to  and you can to cap the shit in the same manner by doing that because that's within the rules or right and i do want to say that these priests were very well prepared by both sides you are like humans were review with the end that we have before this argument and we will again after the argument then we will consider any additional forty that he wants to give to us what we want to do here and what our prime