plan chancel for the it's just tricked electrical french and fun and benefit fuck we are the people whose good deeds did not go unpunished this plan if we're the ones we went first with judge levy we negotiated settlement with our bonding companies in the class actions that those were filed against the trustees service provider claims we're the ones who actually have the largest amount of third party recoveries to da to get to a point that i heard in the prior argument there's nothing in a rest of that provides an exception if the judiciary does a receiver arista draws a boundary within which there are certain types of permissible conduct around the country health funds are in serious trouble because of lower earnings of the last few years the pension fund couldn't say well we got six hundred fifty thousand dollars from our attorney we got five no in dollars from segal a situation here where the common law that is the common law of the federal equity receivership somehow prevails or is able to conflict with the rest of arista gives you that boundary  which courts receivers must respect and so reaching over to grab those plant assets that that my plans have recovered is simply unlawful there's no trouble some precedent in you reversing the district court order on that basis because if you leave this plan intact the way it is is that a it can be used for all kinds of problematic conduct in the future that there's a discount in anything they might recover that can be used just a reason to not investigate otherwise inappropriate conduct and if capital can so as i see just and i shall consult stands for anything it is that there's likely been any of the insurance companies who pay the third party claims have rights of supervision to distributions from receiver they do not for two reasons generally the class action settlements contained maybe second question is is there any proof regarding the existence of any tolling agreements to try and circumvent the offset well gee i know of some but i'm not sure if they're on the record if there are they would have to be contained and i  don't know specifically the receiver periodically reports based upon disclosures that the plan required i have read all the disclosures and for all of the plans really aren't doing anything that really pretty vague so i'm i'm not sure million dollars what should i do now i'm i can go in there asking for everything knowing full well if i settle i'm going to be getting a discount would i be prudent in fact indeed a but it's also an abuse of discretion in the sense that it creates more problems than it can possibly solve i shouldn't have to be worrying about that calculation i should not be worrying about other plans calling me up and saying what did you take that for why didn't you do this or should i be calling these other plans and saying you guys aren't investigating yourselves strongly enough you know if you don't i will that cost our plans money all of these things show the impracticality and the unfairness of that plan and it is not a matter of favoring one over another there's simply a line that cannot be crossed a plan that's not entitled to these funds in the first place is not harmed by not getting them and if i thing one question that has to come up too much of the question of collateral sources these are the insurance companies are explicitly collateral sources and therefore i can i have to distinguish between  the my plans have claims against insurance guarantee associations in five states because of the fault of the agent sure it's the department of labor has approximately seven actions i believe filed against plans largely in the mid west there have been a settlement of department of labor claims against funds in the fact that totaling i think approximately five million dollars there are sparse i know two outstanding service provider claims one by the nevada carpenters against works associates one here locally against smith barney i do not know the amount of insurance coverage or the amount of those claims so i can tell you what they would even result in a lot so that's  this all my client would intend to close this point he is convinced based upon the the reporting that is required from each of the clients that all the third party recoveries that are i understand there is a possibility that some people might deem the system and so what we have in the plan our reporting requirements are every six months every clean that is supposed to report all possible sources and all efforts made to pursue those sources and they're supposed to submit them to the receiver and to the department of labor and if the receiver concludes that somebody is gaining and that includes tolling agreement and if the receiver concludes that somebody is gaming the system then receiver has the discretion under the court's order to come back into court and ask for the appropriate relief whether it be continuing  the recoveries have been had more recently there were tolling agreements reported and we did follow up with the attorneys who represented just clients who had tolling agreements and it did cost them to pursue those claims and i believe there are some of the claims that a separate reserve for that particular client what are we talking about you know in terms of what's left in terms of the amount of money to be distributed and possibly seventy six million dollars as yet to be distributed didn't have to but i did and i went to a particularly high priced accounting firm or a law firm to protect myself i didn't have to do what i did and be closed everything's gone bad i now in a position to recover from on my insurance policy that i voluntarily purchased with my own money i am going to position to recover from deep pocket law firm a b and c that was my investment undertaken voluntarily behind me there's another plan over there that could have done exactly as idea however they declined to take out insurance they declined to give financial advice they simply invest why should my pr my investment now be taken away from me to take care of that imprudent and foresightful stingy person that's passed the argument was the response the response is you get to keep every penny you collect assumption is that we've got a first party insurance policy and they're making a claim on it based upon premiums that they paid directly and i don't know if that's it isn't in the record and b i don't know that it makes  two different things and perhaps a better question for mr carson i think he talks about fidelity funds are one thing and then there are the actual lawsuits for professional negligence filed against the lawyers and the way they started it we've been talking about insurance policies and i  investments those claims are covered by insurance so it is very difficult to buy through do sure live billing insurance in a significant amount i'm aware of one policy that may be as high as five million dollars the others are considerably less probably three i think it's safe to say that for the vast majority of those claims if not all of them the claim sixteen the policy limits of the insurance which is one of the reasons these cases were able to stop these l burn it all up and get ending it or pay it out right because you're going to pay it out one where the other you're right they bring with us policies as well so defense costs reduce the amount for payout so there's plenty of incentive systems when you talk about gaming the system the that's called a recess that means you've got to keep your hands off the plan assets of other plans we've got other touchstones called the collateral source rule that keeps first party insurance covered coverage a claim on that the money can only go to the affected plan those are absolutely collateral sources the other claims against service providers are in the nature of professional malpractise claims primarily don't want to make the marissa claims because of the limitations on remedies that you run into there's nothing in the record to ever show an identity of claims if i have a separate settlement with wilshere for example i can understand  entirely different claim not it's related to capital consultants in the sense your money was lost through it but that's really it relationships facts everything are different and there's nothing in the record to show that identity th