recommend rather rather than per interpretation because you're not giving us any language that can be interpreted mean you may have an argument for reparation both of the systems agreement and of the terminations agreement but that it was not result in the terminations you know that we would have sued for reformation but we didn't think it was an issue because they would read that some ninety ninety four for all tax benefits were to be shared fifty percent and then you also had nobody nobody from the government bothered to read the actual language of the agreement well i think you have to look at the circumstances and what happened was what they were too busy to read the agreement there were a number of circumstances which led to two what could have been interpretation of it was written  because of the greedy legislation so it was inferred that it was not included but it wasn't included because there was nothing shared and what the parliament tried to do through the determination agreement because again i think this is a very we're point they have to three because if they didn't do that there's no provision in applying to spend it here suggesting we don't go back to the original agreement for the tax hearing provisions under these circumstances now terminated and if you do then what difference will it make if the original agreement or report i'm not sure it's all yours well i i'm not sure i'm understanding you but i thought you were thing that the assistance agreement had a  that you're asking for reparation to correct the flaw but at the tank time you're arguing that the tax sharing provisions of the original agreement are have nothing to do with tax sharing under the terminations gre point six after six and that would be if the i r s the congress or the f d i c were to do something that would increase and not covered as that last option in that situation there's no dispute that we would have to share fifty what the government wanted this is not an argument against reprimand even the government's argument is that the assistance agreement and the permanent agreement were grabbed the so that they did not reflect the party and that  mistake and it's not an answer to say that there was a failure that's what gives rise to the reparation clime i understand your honor my point would be we've conceded there was a mutual that agreement it would never get under any practical application it would never move from twenty five percent sharing to fifty percent and you agree that there was a mistake in double counting the them better than them but the apple yes that was not the part original intent under the assistance of the parties however did enter into a terminations agreement and at the time they entered into the determination agreement they recognized the flaw in the assistance agreement and they went ahead to the determination agreement and assistance agreement that the party intended that the consent of the government because at the time they entered into the determination agreement they specifically set out in section eight point four first you look to the terminations agreement if the sharing percentage is not there you look to the assistance agreement that it's a bad decision to incorporate the express to incorporate express your percentage of the assistance agreement trumps the fact that there was an underlying mistake with your original insistence it was because the parties recognise it at the time and there was a mistake with the with regard to that with regard to the twenty five versus fifty percent share when they entered into the terminations agreement that was done with that knowledge they were not aware of a mistake specific circumstances for fifty percent sharing for an increase in coverage as a last adoption is because by definition if you're laying out those two specific circumstances there has to be a reason why it happened and the third circumstance for the for th agreement sharon and it was meant to do a lot of different things to terminate the entire assistance agreement in effect except for section eight point four which for purposes of litigation means you incorporate the twenty five percent sharing rate that going to are just talking about section eight point four because determination ran by its terms was meant to terminate except for the fact that it expressed leaving or branded as a catch all the twenty five percent sharing rate if there was not a sharing rate set out in the termination agreement that governed this circumstance and the government has conceded that there's no sharing percentage and a determination agreement that requires fifty percent sharing here that they've conceded that and they're left with they're left with the great with regard to the assistance of her everybody agrees everybody agreed that we are not contending that the parting under the original system is agreement didn't mean for the sharing agreement for the sharing rate to switch from twenty five to fifty percent at some point in time section eighty four because section eight point four to have meaning that in that reference to the underlying sharing right in the assistance agreement has to mean something it can't just be the government's and it was supposed to be fifty percent statement and then at the bottom of page sixty three moving on the page six looks and talks about the amount of damages or refunds sought in such a claim and that's referring to the bahraini by just washing my hands shall not include the amount they would prove to the benefit of the f d i c manager under the assistance agreement or that would accrue to the benefit of the f d i c manager under this agreement the reason why their arms to the assistance agreement that happened means and then and they refer back to the circumstances in which there would be fifty percent sharing for an increase in lost time as it was to the actions is an indication that there was no mutual sustaining as to the intent here the parties didn't set out across the board fifty that there was still a mistake but the reason why they went back and referred to it was that because it was a twenty five percent share and is in a situation like this where the government doesn't yield any quarter doesn't concede that they made a mistake they breached the contract and if the government had reconsidered its position either before litigation began or during litigation and acknowledged that they had breached the contract and offered us the compensation for the current asset lost inductions in that situation section that in this case the plain language of the determination agreement says if you don't file sharing percentage laid out in the termination agreement and the government conceded that that sharon percentage did not is not found in you there is no provision that applies last phrase with a reference to the determination agreement does happen meaning and it's meant to capture the situation where we initiate litigation the garment or congress or the f d i c iran or us recognizes the mistake and returns the last tax deductions that we were deprived of due to the government's brooch if they return it to us without us having to litigate to the end of this year in a fifty percent but where they haven't given up and haven't made a single concession the eye i would get and i would contend that at that point it's no longer a mistake because the parties have knowingly adopted just the language from the assistance agreement with the knowledge that the underlying the underlying government and even come form stated that the entire reason for entering into the terminations was because they recognized that there was a flaw with the underline sharing percentage in the assistance agreement and that calculation so they went into the simply because determination freeman and self has an ambiguous and within the four corners it provides for seventy five percent of the tax benefits to stay with an a b in this particular case by incorporating the original  current yes and my only point was that your honor is that they didn't inform rated blindly they didn't incorporate it without knowing that there was a myth that there had been an underlying error originally they read and i said that they recognized that the sharing would only move to fifth would never move to fifty percent under that circumstance and yet they went and did it anyway they did it with their eyes open and that's because they recognize that in this kind of situation we would be entitled to keep seventy five percent not just five in the terminations agreement governed and allows and i would apply in this situation which is where covered as a last option would appear the response i would like to make in section two point five deals with surly you know well which is different assets are two different things that you have to keep in mind one is that the asset may be ending with different definition you realized at the time of the disposition of cover their asses so there is a covered asset lost when the asses disposed right to pursue this litigation it talks about that it could affect tax benefits for years in one nine hundred eighty nine in forward well there was no dispute parties and for the years nineteen eighty nine through ninety nine out of three they were title twenty five percent tax beneficiary they didn't have to share those for fifty percent so that if as a result of their litigation they were entitled to amend their ninety ninety one returns because the additional nine hundred ninety one tax benefits they were entitled to a sharing of that twenty five percent and that's the only reason or probably is it may be that the only reason the assistance agreement isn't already back is that that floor provision is is referred back to in section eight point four because for those years they wanted to establish that and and they didn't have to share fifty fifty they only had to share seventy five twenty five so that's why i am and what the point here when you look at the extremes of to sharing there's no basis whatsoever that anybody so i tax actually went for it was only for the purpose of the litigation everybody thought after they accomplished in the terminations agreement that if they pursue this litigation and they were successful what would and we didn't go into much detail with