which is the operating member of platinum on tour your honour's the district court in correctly decided that the assignment agreement between platinum on tor and its affiliate p p c o was an ambiguous lead a complete assignment such that platinum on tour was stri standing as a matter of law can you walk us through the textural your textual argument absolute is i'm having some difficulty seeing where the ambiguity is so looking at the assignment agreement which is at appendix ninety one dollars through ninety four dollars paragraph one the assignment purports to convey all of the right title and interest to the asset as defined in appendix or exhibit a language for our position when you look to the subsequent columns and specifically looking st to the accrued interest because i think the disconnect is most clearly there so this says a cretin and paid interest purchase the disconnect between what is the disconnect between the amount purchased and the amount it was actually due at the time so the law permits the quirk in fact encourages the court to look at the circumstances in which our contractors are executed to determine whether there is ambiguity and the circumstances here are relevant circumstances at a minimum would include the amounts that were actually doing payable in a video to platinum on tour at the time of the assignment agreement so was this a mistake the amount not matching up with a definition that you're describing it's hard it's hard for us in our position as as counsel for the liquidators to know specifically the gentleman who signed this document on behalf of both parties we know that the  party shared a contractual intent because the same gentleman signed on behalf of both contractual parties but that gentleman was one of the primary executives of platinum and for reasons that your owners may be aware of relating to criminal proceedings across the river he's not available to us so we only have what's here and it would appear that there is a there's a mistake somewhere in the document what about exhibit a i mean exhibit a and ninety four d life sciences in the initial principal amount of six million six hundred and fifty thousand eight hundred and sixty nine dollars and zero dollars thirty five cents and exhibit also lists and i quote principal in didn't this is also at ninety dollars principle one dead and is outstanding under instrument that same amount the accrued unpaid interest purchased of any four hundred sixty one thousand eight hundred and forty five dollars ninety six cents and and the purchase price s in the note of six million five hundred and sixty thousand right that's correct or and that actually at the time of the assignment was incorrect that's it goes further than that it says it's s n e of all the right title an interest in two and under the asset set forth opposite its name on exhibit a and the asset sets forth opposite its name is a note in the amount of  six million five hundred and sixty thousand and so in entirety doesn't speak of the overall indebtedness it speaks of just the entirety of the of that lesser amount the time there are certain there are certain provisions that simply can't be harmonized there are also can't be explained if you if you if this was supposed to be a complete assignment of the indebtedness because of the entire and that you could you wouldn't have the partial jurisdiction here it's not clear to me that there's diversity jurisdiction and it seems like that wasn't something that was resolved below and so i'm trying to figure out what's the citizenship of your upstream and if there's two hundred dollars plus of those the question would be is any one of them a delaware citizen that's right and at least one of them is as i understand it was is a del is or was a delaware trust there is a suggestion of that you're right in that well that's not dispositive the citizenship being in delaware it seems at least to kind of reason question about whether there was diversity and you know so i guess it sounds like you're saying you don't know what's right around or weave it which is the reason why we filed the case in state court it was removed by the defendant we alerted the district court to the issue immediately she said why don't you go and make some informal in s not surprisingly we made those informal inquiries and the investors in these series of hedge funds were not entirely forthcoming in response to that we told the judge that with further jurisdictional discovery that oh it is it is certainly noble with further jurisdictional discovery your honor we said why don't we know it because we told the district court of these circumstances the district court said  she was inclined to initially said she was inclined to order some sort of jurisdictional discovery make the defendant pay for it because the reason why we were in federal court was because of the removal by defendant because it would be costly exercise it was certainly suggestive of that our informal efforts to reach out to those particular parties that you're referring to for the courts or the district courts or were met with stony silence so for that to be resolved it would have required some sort of more formal discovery that ultimately wasn't engaged and if we were to to just hypothetical any agree with the contractual interpretation of the district court and want to resolve this on the merits rather then article three standing what then if anything should we do  is there anything more in terms of further proceedings that would flow from that well in terms of further proceedings if your honor weren't here if the court were to affirm on the basis not of not of article three  then the question of course is someone someone has standing because part of you doesn't a video acknowledge that it still owes two million dollars to someone p p c zero is obviously the the logical party for that but as we court's construction but because it thought it had only had a partial assignment held only a portion it gave away it away any rights to enforce the rest so it's so so i guess that's a long even though there is a note here because of the circumstances it's plain to me that he because of the informal aspect of it in the state that and maybe a mutual mistake that there ought to be some relief on that understood to be a partial assignment and acted as such and as i just explained to judge catherine the fact that p p c not only believed such but actually took affirmative steps in in furtherance of its belief by saying now that we've been paid our right and our research was on illuminating on that we found from the district court opinion and saying it's the views of the contracting parties that matter and a non party to the contract urging a construction which is at odds with what both contracting parties  agree to doesn't fly it's what the contracting parties thought that's that's the best that's the best you can do in our research thank you thank you on my left here that he didn't get very far into his argument before the questions started and i suspect the same questions will be coming my way now your preference you can start answering the phone to start answering before we ask them before we ask them all and there certainly is extraneous evidence that's been put forth a narrative form by platinum on tor arguing as to why it should be ambiguous but that's only part of the story there is plenty of other extrinsic evidence and details out there that you could get into if you wanted to our point has always been that's not necessary because your point really is that once you have if the contract necessary as you said but that it would be foreclosed right and that's that's a much better way to put you on this and let's let's talk about the the remit here so the assignment purports to assign the asset and the exactly what it says it is and that is the assignment of the entire and for us when you're talking about the principle about the accrued unpaid interest or the purchase price that's really superb for us so i understand that but it doesn't say it actually doesn't would say that that amount was just to an individual who is the former c e o of new video who is presently engaged has been terminated as the c e o of the video is now presently engaged in litigation with the video so there is a good is correct your honor but the thing that's clear is of the parties out there they're claiming an interest in this the one that's clear that doesn't have any interest has played them onto our life sciences because the clear intent of this document was to transfer whatever existed at this honor i think that's entirely consistent with a and simon of whatever was held by platinum onto our life science at this time they're saying the parada sure if there's more out there at the time this was drafted i think the drafter thought that there was the point is that we know there's one party that's not entitled to that and that's platinum to our life sciences which is why it's entirely appropriate for the court at this time to discuss this case because am i right that in assuming that you think that the video doesn't have to pay p p c all the remaining balance is that your view if that is if that is my view is based solely on the released documents  it your view or not yes that is our view at this point given the released documents that were in the video have any outstanding obligation at all with respect to the is a claim being raised by this rd party individual with respect to that who is claiming those funds and is doing so to this day and is engaged in litigation with the video presently and you take to some point in the litigation that it was either i think consistent throughout this litigation that platinum on tor was did not have an interest so so so just to be clear i guess is pending nineteen years you just goes directly back to my point there could be an issue here between certain parties none of those parties are in the room presently i thought the brief pointed out some point that there was an f c c filing in two thousand and sixteen after the assignment in which new video knowledge that as of the year end two thousand and sixteen the outstanding principal about incorrect i believe that that is the last part of that is incorrect i don't believe that there's ever been an f c c filing that specifically said that the remaining balance was due to platinum on two i believe it said there was a claim nade for the funds by platinum honor the challenge here as my colleague raised earlier is that it's it's complicated it's based on up chain parties that we don't have control over that we would have to go through discovery is it more discovery and and least one of those is delaware trust which certainly raises a i don't know if it's a presumption that a question whether that energy is dollars is and if not two hundred dollars others seems awfully likely to me that somebody is this is in a delaware given all the l p s and c d s volved and i have to confess it has been probably a year since i've looked at this but my memory is that when looking at it at the trust i was of the view e precisely what information did you receive and why do you think it's very very likely that none of them is a citizen of delaware some of this came from my some of my client contacts which had some relationship with the platinum entities  prior to going into the receivership and their general knowledge of who the investors were and that sort of information that was the main source of the knowledge as i believe i guess was in an effort need to go through the list of any asked at some point of opposing counsel what's your what's your basis for your belief that there is a delaware citizen issue here and they said we really can't point to anything specific we're just we're just concerned about it probably rightly decided well if it's something we just have a generalized concern about it rightly so it as an officer of the court i think you should raise or is that if you're not one hundred percent sure but at some wasn't intending to to state a legal position on that and i agree that this where discovery could be taken with respect to that for whatever reason it simply was not done before you sit affirmed on the merits your honor our original intent was seeking a resolution on the merits at the end of the day i don't know that it particularly matters because if there is no standing then i think the issue is resolved at that point as well unless platinum on tour can come up with some other nude no to sign it or something like that i think the distinction of with prejudice or without prejudice is largely