of whether consideration in fact was played and indeed under the statutory architectures and in this case was decided because of the bar's only who extensive with the settlement allocated to these players and because the lack of latest statement of the other side is simply that these amounts have not been determined it would seem to me that that this case obviously has to go back for not they paid settlement monies on account of these claims because if they didn't there's just no more at all now with respect to the other issues i submit that you don't have to reach them but sure because if this goes back to terminations of whether the act of files at all the court did make errors of pure a wall which should not be does the other side we do know that hawaii tends to follow the second we state and so there is absolutely no reason to believe that we don't have an equitable in the end of the claim even if it should develop that the consideration was properly fait to give rise to the bar and all now we also assert fraud breach of contract and of course contributory negligence can never bar breach of contract  shooting fish in a viral because under the law that was applied to liquidators they aren't charged with anything that the previous management so the determination being made in that arbitration was if you are allowed to take into account anything that was done by the by mr both were we mad with joy also remember when we went home why did pick up then it is improper to collaterally stop me that's answer number one is negligent not not if you can consider certain evidence in the arbitration and i can consider different evidence to common l was correct under the law so we have two different legal standards that govern the outcome i'm sorry we have two different legal standards governing the outcome i'm not this is not some discretionary ruling by the arbitrator i other side the procedural on devices available in the arbitration were not as good as they would be in a kind of court and that's something that under apartheid hosiery and the case has to be taken into  negligent and the answer is that's not an appeal they've been the judge negligent there was an arbitration that was appealed the judge as rahul from an arbitration and then they appealed to the nice circuit and this is this this court affirmed that arbitration so there is no dispute not only are they not only are they negligent but the courts found this an essential finding of the negligence that they knew that the trading was illegal specular trading of a small insurance company that was trading billions of dollars the fin state court ruling goes on a motion to dismiss a finding that no consideration was paid the argument advanced there was that because there was a settlement that we had planned that issue of what a reasonable man would think not not a finding of our state of mind there's been no determination of our state of mind it has some similarity to the issue of reasonable reliance have supposed but it's not a determin two also mark my threshold if you about consideration because it is absolutely not true that they could have gotten given him a release based on cooperation and then barred us that's their stake that the or any amount or proportion by which the releases or release provided the total claim shall be reduced if greater than the consideration paid they only get they only get a bar for what they paid for and we vigorously disputed with evidence testimony under oath that there was no payment to settle these claims and that if you should have been resolved on summary judgment and if we were on a contested basis then there is no bar at all and we don't have to agonize over whether or not negligence is a defense to this or that although i have to come back to say that negligence is obviously not a defense for breach of contract never has been never will be  five believe that we are entitled to have all the reversed and remain and certainly on the issue of what consideration was paid but also all of the issues of basic liability