consequences of a mistaken or erroneous termination statement and then secondly lean priority issues which are controlled by statutes as well as well established case law the bankruptcy court judge the credibility of witnesses it weighed the evidence and then it arrived at a result all that was to court by the facts and the evidence as well as the law nonetheless the district court  only to pay the bank but also pay senates and have three hundred seven thousand dollars of what he called net margin to be applied spinach is carry over then there's that or the next body of evidence was the three different statements by the senate's manager mr davies specifically saying i'm going to get paid from proceeds as well as loan proceeds so that's the evidence in the record in terms of interest and then the normal cour farming and stand back and create what it is when you stand back agreements occur in the normal you know is that i wouldn't i wouldn't say that there is a norm for this i think it's strictly a case by case deal yes i want to comment that i think the different court's order started understand because in my view the analysis is legally in factually consistent and it's just plain wrong as a matter of terminations statement certainly for anything you must have actual knowledge under about financing statement well not really fin well but whenever they went along with it you know they seem to be behaving in a way so i think that they think sides certain cases where are you know they're asking for some sort of that says if you can rely on equity as a basis for avoiding the consequences of your mistaken erroneous information statement that make you wonder why we have a financing state and if you have what is that easily so there's no legal authority for that sort of didn't do anything more than confirm what the law is anyway the remember again the bank couldn't trace a dime of its advances to this crowd even at the bank and not terminated its financing statement and forget about the stand that's the conclusion where the bankruptcy court concluded that the bank couldn't avoid the consequences of its terminations that statement by claiming to have received these proceeds in the ordinary course of business the  i this case to mean it's always been very straightforward and the thing that makes it complicated thing is all these off the wall arguments that attempt to explain why we can avoid the consequences of terminations statement and get money after we've been gauging this c and the reason i believe that is because two extremely intelligent judges judge rush meisel and district court judge shaik have looked at this case and come to opposite conclusions it's a difficult complex presents d complex legal issues thank you i'd like to focus on two of the areas on appeal one of response to the next is appeal regarding the issue of waiver and one regarding equitable reinstatement the policy issues behind the waiver scam from a tension between the idea advanced by senate so that they would have to have actual knowledge of the terminations statement using the definition under one and two well one twenty five versus the idea or the concept of constructive knowledge that the code is built around under anything in the record that says that indicates that yes because all i don't have personal knowledge the knowledge and the record was the manager the finance manager who had been asked to running u c c financings search scheme and search i believe that if you look at the record representations about the timing of the representations it's mighty by senator the representation regarding the written letters that went out was dated in late december and never received until january after the transactions at issue the only statement in the record by the u s bank representative came in late february it was checked out by and turned out to be false and when the u s bank was confronted with that in late february they turned around and allowed xanax to take a march shops so the record does not support the allegation that  either represented orally or in writing to sentence that how the first position at the time of the checks in question in this case and that really in my mind brain the waiver state construct of knowledge and actual knowledge can form the basis for a waiver that varies from state to state and may be contradicted by other states such as nevada or finally requirement otherwise if we didn't have that destructive notice any time any of these transactions were slaves everybody could monday morning quarterback who should have that's to me there's a difference yes and that is the second policy argument that i think this case presents to this panel to clear up for practitioners such as representatives of senate and  cases from around the nation that have felt with the issue for senate by this case which is equitable reinstating the policy that we're looking at is a head butting between four zero four eight which allows visions those two are separate and distinct code provisions under for oil to the question is and it has never been addressed by any court of this circuit or of the nation that i can find is for  tracing issue i think is an unfortunate events of the term and the concept of the opinion because although it could be traced in the sense we could take ten dollars and show that that's ten dollars were spent for gas the record is clear that all of the money that was loaned in the one nine hundred ninety eight operating loan except for three thousand dollars of money was used for the crop that was run by mr staffer and that was  same extent because the operating line with us bank was still one debtor and one farm although his living expenses went through the farming operations so we've got the same level of traceability if you want to ninety nine long run we are relying on and the original financing statement to provide us with the priorities in the event that the court equitably  statement came after the bankruptcy trustee acquired its super priority liens by the filing of the bankruptcy and in that case the court said truth of the not reinstate it would provide occurrence when you have the buyer a farmer proceeds cutting a shack they put the names everyone who likely has used curity interest on that so that that person that paper is not in here and we'll take care of you i respectfully disagree with that i believe the record reflects that the checks were taken the sat next senate signed off on the checks based on the remit that the checks would be used directly from that check up on an equitable and gorgeous and available think i would like the court to uphold the district court's conclusion for any of the variety of reasons that we have stated but i'd also like the court to think about the policy reasons behind the