that's bankruptcy courts and extremely limited jurisdiction every case that is played out in the supreme court for bankruptcy court in the sizes that mr so often was not subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court the bankruptcy case was brought by vance ironworks his company he was not a party to that proceeding at any point when we talk about the adversary will claim they can tell who was forced to bring in the bankruptcy court relatively normal breach of contract fraud action against two related parties because the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction limits the claims that can be brought in that instance and you're right it takes time to push you and the policies behind those decisions again pretty straight and clean wellness however in most instances these are cases relied on by the finish the bankruptcy proceeding involved the party seeking the protections of bankruptcy line of reasoning is wholly new it was never presented to the trial court and while i can't speculate as to what the trial court would have done had she been presented with the opportunity address this line of reasoning the opportunity was never present that's not what happened record's clear that that provision disappeared from the state mandated for it was not clearly scratched our black through it was gone barney makes on rights said today it is in proving the testimony was actually for him he went to the direct question why couldn't you get the seal because the transfer of title provision wasn't there there's been arguments in the briefing about circumstantial evidence and actually present the jury a full picture of lower price than action was and what the results were to now come back and say that based on defendant's position at trial there was an error so egregious that we should start a new is rearview mirror now so i can't remember exactly but judge allowed in all the evidence the judge heard all the evidence the jury heard all the evidence and in the end the jury agreed that what they heard from the contenders witnesses was enough to support their ver judge having heard the same evidence agree the same there's simply nothing in the record to show that a new trial would be appropriate was briefly discussed and believed with the defendant has now backed away from saying they introduce any sanctions were inappropriate out but it was turned to the manner in which those sanctions were awarded as being the question of what was appropriate or as the manner in which of sanctions were put into effect is not a question of whether or not that was appropriate approach and enter judgment on the first two elements of county which was a fraud claim but the issue is then whether a materiality comes into play when all the defendants now asking this court to essentially be right but they only pat  struction because material is it within the first element of proof of the fraud claim so the crew had to take the net out of the instruction and place that somewhere else to comply with what the defendants now saying would have been the proper enforcement of the sanctions warden if simply no basis for doing so causation reliance and damages were all contested vigorously i very vigorously at trial and the jury disagree