and would ask when the like comes on you have two more minutes in your presentation and when the red light comes on we ask you to conclude unless you're answering a question from the court we have read  in record excerpts we have not necessarily gotten into the whole record before this hearing so we appreciate your record citations when you're arguing and with that we were on the st case in the afternoon number  luke's did not succeed in their st year to eliminate all their position partners and thus they started to then misrepresent the ownership structure of the hospital so that they could expand the hospital facilities which they otherwise the government is clearly now aware of the facts of this case have they stopped paying the hospital reimbursements they have but that's a concern certainly i can understand there's no a way that would benefit the merits of this case on behalf of the relatives that would be like litigants affirmatively trying to fix the outcome case that may be one of the reasons why the well but if you wouldn't pay something if you knew fact to x you would stop pain they would seem that once your learned fact actually would stop paying and failing to do that would suggest that that doesn't bother you because we certainly have had other cases where the happy come aware of a fact and that has caused a problem so the if the if they don't have to pay because of this alleged misrepresentation of ownership why are they putting dr i don't know exactly what's in this situation in this but this is the pleading stage of this case certainly reasonable to presume that c m s may not change entity that satan has claimed at all that essentially inherited the hospital at that point so it took six months when c m s was trying to sort through the misrepresentations of things was provided at which point they didn't pay a dime for should do and stop paying how could they possibly pay off the damages you're asking for it be the hospital have you had financial resources chris kids make yet so i could see right well certainly if c m s it softened and had not a issue depends in part on rulings of the state court status or not or you claim that the state court vindicated that you your clients are never really sold out their partnerships my understanding is that there's never been at least as i read the procedure a record there has never been a definitive decision by the texas court that after the capital call after your clients refused to pay up on the capital clock they still own an interest in the hospital and there is not been a definitive decision  about that i believe because the court said that you didn't you need not seek to reverse the effects of of the recession  all of that what's the current a few months ago all the other proceedings were so that's what i thought so we're just down to this yes or no so this settlement does that  od out does that encompass or take away from the finality of any of the rulings in the state court has typically a settlement was saying we can win no we don't exceed liability blah blah and it just kind of under the constraints of the fair false claims act which means you have to prove you have to plead fraud which means you have to prove the who what when where and how of the friday line activity and i understood the district court what he suggests it is that there was a valid business reasons supported by at least arguable legal reasons why the hospital proceeded as it did in both  buyer and the capital call and so on and since there were two out of turn it a plot plausible scenarios that you didn't to satisfy rule nine b for pleading fraud you rather not have the doctors want to do right by them we want to avoid lawsuits like the one your client filed saying y'all have been running this well and you've been losing money and so they do this rescission and now you and now you say oh well  leaves the complete makes it clear they were looking for ways pacifically to overpaid positions and it wasn't just to do right by but it was the work of a skin because they wanted to encourage on going with hurls that was critical to their where is that and where is that indicated because again the fact that you are trying to keep good feelings in people about whom i've been isn't enough to show that you're that you're doing the kickbacks so well more that more to the point i mean in addition to that point the difference between five thousand dollars which would supposedly the market value be centrists after the government screwed them up and forty thousand dollars plus interest saved even forty thousand dollars per physician it's hardly going to be a big inducement that doesn't even pay for many physicians automobiles to be very blunt about it it's not that much money as far as a bribe goes so i mean just on its face that seems an impossible theory ok thank you tell prior to the beginning of the recession have actually sued the partnership number of the executives who say look system various subsidy years he did not accept other and that lawsuit was based on things unrelated to this vote on the rescission right or it was and and so that would support the notion that at least some doctors could claim hey you're not running this hospital well or you misled us about the likely profits or whatever and so as i was saying before you want goodwill you want to do right by people just buy him out you know this is this investment just didn't work on the buy you out it seems funny to me to have someone complain about getting more for their investment than they might could have gotten if you used the most tricky legal position and you've come into the case until just before we tried for four years of  rescission or whatever it was it was basically on the route that they got well that that that that didn't have to do with the recession that had to do with management of the hospital and so what what is left for them to recover here or maybe just i don't know if it seems funny to me that they continue to sue under every theory under the sun and then settle part of that i all right so what is your events are to why i see in this stuff again you know when you stated that the ownership had changed and they were satisfied with the verification but your answer to that that means it's rather than business if there was an exchange of fair market value consideration for a valuable release so there was  going at least in part because the hospital was losing money to your clients and i that that but it wasn't profitable or successful at the time because people were suing them because they weren't making any money off of their investment bright new young people who weren't suing no one had said them but they were grumbling