here are as i'm sure recognized pension fund that we're dealing with here and there are multiple pension funds and probate there but the one in belfair was frozen in two thousand and thirteen and that means that there were no for the liabilities accrued we have to bet the two employees not should period between thirteen and seventeen or after the petition date at all and in addition all of the rights to receive the pension contributions were pledged now there are three he covers the entire actuarial liability of not just dependent upon employee employer contributions that are allocated among the differed from reuters based upon their then current payrolls that had nothing to do with the benefits them every single employer in puerto rico stopped making payments because what was really created is some doubt as to to ration liability in other environments that this was joined several among all the employers and which kind of makes sense because you know you're going to have seeking criminal penalties against those who refuse to pay that money so something significant to burn through the nature of the corvette preposition property right into the bondholders cannot have a greater work on to make contributions the obligation langridge is as stupid of this employers there it seems to be missing from the statu you will in the system and it's self to go after those contributions that is essentially to question the judgment pez was asking you and i'm sorry i don't think we've gotten a clear answer from you yet you just said it's self effectuating if there is an obligation on the part of the collect why i don't understand that i don't understand why it's self effectuating when the legislature could have written explicit language to that effect and it chose not to perceivable you have the possibility of future payments in the form of the employer contributions you say if they are polite that the funds that were in that this would be the settlement for and that that work had already been done there was something more that had to be done in terms of getting provable but that was a fix so i'm the work scary interest in the entire actuarial deficiency and the way the statute devise a deficiency it is an impossibility for the employer contributions to be proceeds or collections on  all the terms in the security agreement were in place prior to two thousand and thirteen yes and at that point it's an expected sea as opposed to a property right i think everyone agrees on that is you're right ok so in two thousand and thirteen they're frozen and liquidated the argument on the other side is that that somehow converts it to a property right is that your understanding we i'm just trying to say we are you not understand what you think you're arguing against  which is if if we're all agreed that it's expectancy before two thousand and thirteen something happened in two thousand and thirteen is it your understanding that your opponents argue that that's what converts it to a property right now  and subsection d directs the employers to pay a flat nine point two seven five percent of actual payroll going forward for each successive year so they created the theory that somehow you can read the statutes to give them a lien on an obligation of the lawyers to solve the whole system's underfunding but that doesn't council they do they do need collections on the receiver will proceed to the receiver which is some type of disposition transformation of the receiver of them there are none here because the statute only requires these fixed payments fixed percentage or payroll going forward and if it contemplates every year it's not good enough there will be a growing deficiency because you're barely covering the actual out of pocket but there the legislature in a time can adversely change the employer's contribution and it might do that if there are severe financial distress and you don't have any other recourse so number one i so the only way to pay them is to get money and the only way to pay for a surcharge the employer contribution is to get money appropriated to you so the statue says there should be an appropriation every and seems to try to reduce or complexity to what your essential argument is that although seems to be your essential argument that we are in a statutory environment the obligations are statu more than an expectancy i understood this case to be about the official statement and the language in it and the fact that that it please the court catherine stately on behalf of the official committee of retired employees the retiree committee represents one hundred and sixty seven thousand approximately which i reserve the commonwealth of puerto rico and has a great interest in  indicate in any way shape or form they are at council's argument that they had a fixed do when payable receivable for the entire amount of pension liabilities such that that the merits of the action your honor's question with regard to the cato case i think points out something that's very loosely used in the down to this paper it's papers this whole idea of contingent allegations or expectancies in the conditions in that agreement come due that's contrast it to what you see here with the employer contributions that the bondholders helping them we have to go to the security agreement and the definitions that are contained there initially the administrator said still great for the year and then each month from the pay rolls come do the employer calculates the contribution rate that is required to be paid in this required pay that within fifteen dollars days of paying the employees th sense but she's doing it she's trying to figure out do we have a new collaterals petition or did we have four seats and so she looked to see the language well was pale and she determined as the statutory language indicates  bankruptcy that's also their constitutional brains are the minority never really need to get you because there are no constitutional problems the only thing that piety to say takes away from the bondholders is a contractual rightness the security to be true thirteen change said this employer contributions shall harbored the difference between the total cost of the benefits provided by the system and the cost of it ministration reduced by the portion contributed by administrator is authorized to read sentence the administrator is or authorized to require public enterprises for municipalities to make additional payments to eliminate surety that said shortages require an this and another part of the statement about it indicates exactly where the legislature intended to accomplish this is it supplemented with attendant and i mean from the from starting with the parent that it will but i'm not taking it out of annually to cover the system's cashflow deficit however it must be clear that the benefits accrue by act of the public employees under the laws that cover them up to be a guard to be to this act shall subsystem and section a that makes the peanut of the obligation absolute and it can't be interpreted either way the it and also this and before it it kind of defies common sense and certainly defies the legislative statement of motives it would have made the payment of pensions that contingent they did the allocated part of the liability part of the right ability based upon the payroll of entities but they said in no uncertain terms that the thank you thank you as we might not be surprising in a complex case like this we did not applied the rebuttal rules with perception so mr bienenstock if you would like to minutes for surgery by them you're entitled to them commonwealth it is going is paying down out of general revenues now because otherwise you're talking about our hardworking people who would be put on the streets that's not well this pal this case is about an additional amount that the bondholders are saying has to be taken from the commonwealth to pay their bonds after they were told in no uncertain terms of the official statement that the legislature could could adversely change the statute the extremely be known or employer contributions are all in excess of the amount necessary to pay  to pay the retirees their pensions now all counsel i submit is squashing together some things that gives the wrong impression the bondholders lean is on  mandatory ryan ridge that they're referring to is was directed in the official statement and the statue to the people we are going to pay your pensions that you worked their whole lives for