didn't do their lead simply did nothing before that day and then they come in really through the back door and are arguing they are there in total to not want a consistent basis apples to apples but on an entirely that myth that makes sense and that rather than focus on a particular provision in a particular section of deals with indemnification place because that's not what we're here for that we should look at the contract as a whole we should look at the escro timetables there is no specific timetable for the resolution of the purchase price of justifying different forms of notices so that the escrow agent would give a determination notice in the event upon resolution of the purchase price adjustment  rely on that single phrase in section three point too would negate article two would eliminate the entire reconciliation process would cause a forfeiture of our purchase price adjustment claim that was in escrow for purposes of the first president plan then we are that's that's our only source of funding to resolve these two separate types of plans just so he interpretation as a whole doesn't make sense if the purpose would not have attended intended the ripple points out these are sophisticated cards and they are in they would not have put millions in escrow for the express purpose of resolving a purchase price adjustment where they wouldn't have agreed to this detail reconciliation process in an arbitration in front of a c p a in degree or to a specific form of notice to resolve the purchase price adjustment point if that higher process could be grounds to halt by the failure to file notice of a different kind of play if they just don't line up and that's the problem the ultimate problem with their theory is there any he said it several times there was no closing after pasha's all of the books and records and a comparison of the net book value in those two balance sheets and that's the process that was to be submitted to the arbitrator in the event that there was no resolution my head and then the claimant didn't serve but that claim usually is a multiple of earnings to look at these companies are bought based on multiples so if there is a the mistake of a million dollars in a receivables we can sue them for five or seven or ten what they're really asking for they say he didn't interpret these provisions relating to how we compare financial statements in the way that we think he should but it clearly was in the section of the purchase price adjustment provisions of the contract interpretation issue the only the only reasonable construction here the one that was adopted by judge gordon after hearing on a motion for summary judgment is the money does stay in escrow until the purchase price adjustment is is  that there should be a substantive resolution of that issue and because the parties could not attend intended this kind of track door of the fact that our intent is to korea is it really is a trap door it's you didn't file a claim for a in sort of very at a very high level about that process it was primarily the correction of accounting mistake so the big problem with respect to receivables was that there were these things all charge you know you go through their records and you see they just didn't book it so it's not sort of this high level setting of reserves type of issue but those are things that were more are better suited for resolution in this accounting arbitration  if that were the case we wouldn't need the whole process for resolving accounting related disputes and we wouldn't need a c p a firm to come in in resolving this i mean their interpretation of consistency is so s and in found that because of that it really isn't the kind of counting methodology that we have to hold consistent from from one balance sheet to the next the agreement says we compare net book value they are asking you to compare roast value what are the changes in gross receivables in gross inventory that's now the agreement says the agreement also says that there are estimated balance she should have appropriate provisions for uncollectible accounts receivable they never address there is nothing in here that says that even if bosh could have pursued some indemnification here for some of what you'd also pursued as a purchase price adjustment there's nothing that says that there are exclusive and in fact there is a provision in the global purchase agreement section one point one for all of waiting some double counting which service at the amount of any credit this is right in the purchase price adjustment section and the amount of any credit or adjustment taken into account in the calculation of the purchase price shall not be given economic effect more than once in favor of the party to whom such amount was paid me to the extent that we get a dollar that were owed under the purchase