to allow it to pursue the collateral which was listed in the membership and or pledge agreements and the amendment to that now as i mentioned earlier the biographically code provides in section forty six one i two year statute of limitations that two years is to run beginning with the day an order for relief is in order that in the state of kinsey bankruptcy case was january twenty one two thousand and nine so the trust they had the debtor possession and or the trust they would have had until january twenty one two thousand and eleven to either file an objection to grant com lincoln  a law that sounds like and the firm statement of the wall that for example the court could have done on its own motion so if five o two cd is a statement of all it doesn't say anything about how it would raise that issue could raise it an argument could raise it by a potion is just a separate rule as opposed to the affirmative bringing suit so how  do you import the statute of limitations of five forty six into what looks like a free standing rule of five o two that's my section five zero two says that i defensively the marketing associates guys which i mentioned is out of the bankruptcy court out of the eastern district of missouri and they cited that it is implicit that no preference is avoidable if the action is not brought within filing or quire meant lack of construction constructive knowledge of the filing requirement diligence in pursuing one's rights absence of prejudice to the defendant and the plaintiff's reasonable security interests while two years before the motion for relief was filed the trustee has the pardon to establish that he exercised due diligence to discover evidence of due diligence he did top of the council think your time's expired i may have one question that might have any questions when i when i talked to you a minute ago about five o two the i wasn't sure you  cited in five of two d it says of course will disallow any claim of any entity from which property is republical under five forty two five forty three five fifty or five fifty three  mr cash filed a claim for the grand com like a hair small farm and put on the face of the claim that the collateral for the climb was really a state between two thousand and nine and february of two thousand and eleven there were a number of here he was there were a number of things that occurred in the bankruptcy court that had to do with the alleged collateral grant common lin some participated either as a party or representing a party or as both and over all those instances which were details in her opinion and which we  reiterated in our brief between pages twenty eight and thirty one connell lincoln harrison never once mentioned or said anything that it was claiming any interest in this other collateral it was until after the statute of limitations expired and a very brief time after the statute of limitations had expired that the grant conflict a law firm amended they're lying amid they're trying to assert a security interest in the number of items that were not re motion for relief from stay sued the trustee his lawyers at the time and i was then hired to represent the trustee and object to the motion for documents that was to the first client then they filed the amended proof one shortly thereafter three days later on both of those actions happened just after the two years that expired so i guess my  i understood your theory is kind of they're waiting in the weeds and come forward after the two years but it looks like they came forward because mackenzie says you've got no documents and then they bring forth the documents for the fifty well misunderstanding something or they may well i don't know the answer to that your honor what i can say is that i believe the objection to the original claim was that there were no documents of pad the claim was a single page basically rice said real estate real estate but what i'm saying is that it's it's the documents that they then attach the raise the we but they don't bring forth the seven fifteen documents fontayne they bring it forth in response for me objection that's what i'm trying to wrap my head around i think that's accurate to say that i think it would be a little strong to say that it is our position that they were waiting that they conspired or actively conspired or war snickering behind the curtain that all we go to do is wait a few more months of the statute of limitations will expire i think that they're their actions as the judge says she details that very specifically their actions war that there was consume whether or not it was an affair is i don't know that she says it his objection to their applying under five o two d could judge have spontaneously disallowed the claim because the conditions were met even if the trustee had objected i think i think the bankruptcy court judge could do that practically speaking i don't think that would ever happen but yes you know the court practically speaking the court does not review claims until someone says something about the claim or there's an action on the clyde but yes i do think the court the court could on its own had it reviewed the play and said i'm going to disallow this claim based upon  y and the issues about the what we call the defensive use of five o two d there are two views of that i think that the view the record because the majority view and to say that the better view is to not allow that is to allow someone who for two years doesn't assert any interest in this collateral doesn't say anything about wanting to take proceeds it just seems as though that the majority view that five zero two d can be used defensively is the better view as judge drucker had failed i have quite a bit of time left that's all i had intended to offer if the is all like two years plus after the bankruptcy has been filed is there any reason that he didn't get around to mckinsey didn't object until this i can't speak for he or his his counsel is to watch while they didn't