sides continue to discuss lost profits and yet the court of federal claims rejected the lost profits claim and i don't understand that first federal is challenging that decision when franchise value and you know a loss of act which seems to be a sound theoretical coin the question is whether the decline in the franchise value is supported by the record that market value now the there's a real question as to whether the market value that posits was supported by the record and in particular whether there was any evidence of what the deposits were worth at the time of the breach but if you want to stand up there and treat this is the los decreasing the amount of ha they became more profitable at the appendices page four hundred four twenty one there's a state by league in c e o at the time who stated that by reducing the pot by closing twelve branches and this is what the court sa those deposits will cost you nine hundred ninety what temperance does it make if we don't if we're not doing a lot of profits analysis and we're just saying they wast some deposits and that the franchise value declined and if those deposits had a market value why isn't the perfectly ok for the court to say we're going to determine what the market value is and we're going to reward that as damages if it's you know i just don't understand why the  the very speculative determination of what the profitability of this bank was going to be in the future has anything to do with this case now that the court of federal fines it says that's too speck of you want you eat the court agree with you that it was too speculative trying to figure out the future profits we're dealing with a different issue now and the issue is they lost some deposits which had a market value did they prove the market that you need to address agreed was necessary to analyze to determine whether or not a premium would manifest upon the disposal of these deposits now there is there's no assumption that just because you lose deposits and that is just contrary to which was above the contract price you recover the lost value of the week you don't have to show but if you've made the weekend of bread you would have made a profit it's ridiculous but there that may be the case here of wheat but with the  market value of the last deposits were at the date of the breach that is at the time of the enactment of fire and the regulations in december implementing firey ok what evidence did you put on the if we're talking about property yeah you look to the future to the lost profits of the future but if it's a question of loss a valuable asset at the time of the breach inability to  retain the deposits and and what is the what is the case that says you don't value those as of the date of the breach with the energy capital case we agree with  and that was rejected and you haven't he'll become that with what with this speech the value your honor is the value of the deposits lost as a day of trial and measured by what they and in energy capital thirteen thirty at the time when performance should have taken place at the time of that as to which damages are measured but it also says right below that expectancy damages cases are exceptions to the general rule th two hundred fifty million dollars loss groet and he rejected that as expected but the other was the three hundred million dollars deposits by which we can actually shrink awareness to characterize that as an award of that i don't read that as a warning lost profits with relation to the deposit i read his opinion as awarding the value of the lost deposits not the where as the court knows the trial were not a contract and one of the three but not on the other two so the issue that was debated throughout two thousand and four was how do we adjust the damages models to account for the three it was with the district court the trunk were applied was the median premium for all midwest routes in the year two thousand in the first half of two thousand and one that was on the captains chart and in the quarter members midwest risks which on or not also accounts for the things the government says the truck were going to account for such as size cation types of deposits by using the median and the government's expert d first of all the negotiations and connection great plains given to the government statement accurate that there were no or negotiations about great plans but not with respect to the other two as there were there were specific negotiations expected reclaims there was a limited negotiation in the sense that try federal in the tri federal version lake and ask for a thirty year in decision originally but based on the great place to go she had by the time the agreement was reached going election ship whatsoever with respect to global there's a big difference between the trial court's decision lobe and in this case in globe there was a sale and close the court actually considered the facts of the case and it took the premium from correction of the court would be to make now with respect to the long as the pattern and circumstances demonstrates that something more the something more that the court talked about indeed had been the case in the andersen case and the something more it was the pattern and circumstances and the reality of the times and