between our filing the appeal and as we sit here before this court today to make that move or to render no jurisdiction the answer by both parties i believe will be no this issue is still alive and well perspective is the issue pertaining to sell the home that is or is observed with respect to judge gonzales or others it's a big provision that we're all here to talk about which provides from day one from day one from march two thousand nine briefs before this court regarding this these issues but your honor to some to boil it down the issue is whether or not the receiver can in fact do that was whether or not they can from the start of the case without any reference or  pending the actual contract for sale and had we'll let this go there's no question that we would have been too late in coming back before this court the house would have already been sold to the state again i mean the state's going to say yes yes we're still is in effect so it is a very real provided the very start of the case the very start of the case a stage which the defendant may when the plaintiff may well you you can bypass this is not an issue where these are filed in the receiver's possession they passed all that they were right to the defendant and they court is the first line of this is raised in the records in october two thousand and four at that time there is an issue that was raised with respect to the authority to sell or hold machinery sawgrass personally responsible the issue of whether it was booked into the record or not before the investors can get to that asset there's a situation by virtue purely by virtue of this order where in fact the receiver can go into their own personal benefit not for the benefit of the reader of the investors but for his own personal benefit and take the claim was as to what the findings are with respect to the claims or respect for the damages that is all done at the very outset of the case and say ok we're going to determine that all receiver costs are going to be apportioned to the defendant and your honor with respect to attaching those the assets of the defendant and then holding those assets responsible came of the receiver that it i submit that is an abuse of discretion particularly those assets are not in the control of the receiver united states supreme court case is you how do you get from that i mean i can understand if they can if they really really and he has a claim that some particular asset which appears to be held by somebody else really belongs to the state they can go after it and so on beat it because we're you know we're going to we're going to show them we can do what we promise we can do with cetera et cetera i mean you could have explained it you could have spun it but the point was he had obligation to tell the truth at that meeting and he did and the fact that it's unusual that the defendant challenges it but i can speak from personal experience at least in three other s e c face i've been in it's been part of the order and in this how the court will order the receivership costs to be paid if the company turns out the solvency and there are plenty of estate assets to pay the costs of the receivership it may be appropriate for those costs to be paid out of the receivership assets if the company turns out to be insolvent and there are insufficient funds to pay the cost of the receivership and it is determined that the tenant was rushed sponsible for having the receivership being like this one if you have been going after the personally assets and outside of their company's estate that money is going to be drawn it's not going to be able to be refund if there isn't any left if it's distributed to some creditors and stuff like are generally subject to discourse missouri with pit ultimately turns out that the court has made an interim award of fees to the perceiver and the fund and is then able to persuade the court that the defendants completely innocent of any wrongdoing should not be held responsible for the costs of the receivership then the receiver will be liable for the return of those fees to the defendant receiver will have to look elsewhere possibly to the f c c as some cases have held where the  the general rule is you get it from the receivership assets but that's the general rule there are circumstances in which the court has discretion to tax the moving party for the cost or the other party in contempt of the court's order for interfering with the receivers duties or not cooperating with the receiver thereby increasing the cost of the receivership all the more reason why the defendant should be liable for the costs and then finally the court has granted in part yes he sees motion for summary judgment the court has found liability on the security violations on the misrepresentations to investors and has said in that order that a permanent injunction will issue at the time of the final judgment but it is simply being held in abeyance until the the sportsman's civil penalties are resolved so the court has now submission at this point in time that we expect an order from the court and back ok thank you thank you