case st she failed to follow the takings liability rule established by this court in the auto and nd she failed to follow the economic impact test established by this court most recently in anaheim gardens turning st to the liability test in the auto this court announced that where the government offers financial assistance to induce or to require a rd party to damage or destroy private property that taking may have occurred depending of course on the circumstances the test that the trial court used here was quite different she required the plaintiffs under the burden of proof to prove that the government forced chrysler to file bankruptcy in almost insurmountable test now the head of the auto team steven rattner often referred to as the cars are testified that dealer terminations was a quote interger all part of the package that we told christ or was necessary to obtain financial assistance he further testified on cross examination that under the government's plan under the government's plan is a quote under the government's plan some franchisees would remain in business and others would not under the government's plan and he also testified that it was the government's determination that quote if you want the government's money and you want a chance to restructure you're going to have to use bankruptcy not only do we have that testimony but of course we have the contractual requirement section seven dollars of the bridge loan agreement which requires xit that chrysler submit a so called viability plan to show how it plans to move forward and one element of that viability plan which had to be approved by the president's representative in this case mr ratner the head of the auto team reduction in the dealer network based on the conclusion of the auto team that a reduction in the size of the network would be beneficial and would be required if the government is to put more public money into chrysler the viability plan that chrysler submitted in and attempt to comply with seven point two two was rejected by the government the government said that viability plan did not meet the requirements of section seven twenty of the bridgestone agreement and one of the reasons one of the elements that did not meet the requirements was the fact that chrysler did not propose terminating dealers rather chrysler proposed a continuation of the so called project genesis a voluntary plan of consolidation among dealers so that they would bring all three brands under a single roof if you will a chrysler proposed to continue the amortization of dealerships which is running at about ten percent a year and to also continue the voluntary consolidation of dealerships as it had been doing in prior years the government rejected that said it wasn't good  the government tries to defend the trial court by citing the fruit hof standard and that's a standard for determining whether a party entered a contract under is not a duress case is not a contract case it's most certainly not a tort case as a matter of fact a just compensation case under the th amendment assumes that all of the government's actions were lawful and legal and as the court has set forward in and the auto that the only question is whether the financial assistance offered induced or required chrysler in this case to take action to terminate the dieter's franchise is made mr mr murray so what's what's the best quote from a n a specific effect on a rd party course we didn't have the testimony of mr ratner at that time we didn't have the contract we didn't have the court didn't have the benefit of paragraph seven dollars so what the court was talking about was well if you're trying to determine whether chrysler acted entirely on its own entirely voluntary and therefore there was no government action and i think that's the key question the government claimed it had nothing to do with  right right but there's i mean there seems to me there's there's some distance between say entirely voluntary and that there's a spectrum of activities here entirely voluntary a requirement  not every or to say that not every requirement or inducement would be what would amount to coersion you still have to ask a question about whether it was of forcing chrysler to file bankruptcy is that that was not the financial inducement or the financial aid that resulted in the termination of the dealers bankruptcy was a step in the process but what the trial court did was to limit her inquiry than to saying well the board of managers of chr got together they all voted to do this and they all said they voted voluntarily to file bankruptcy so that's ok well consider the slippery slope that that creates is it possible then for the government which would be liable for taking if they did it themselves to simply offer a financial assistance to some rd party and have that rd party voluntarily say yes i'll take your money and i will destroy these people's property and that way the the judgment could rest independently on the finding if the finding were error free that in the absence of the challenge government action there would have been think the best articulation of that test is the court's recent decision in march of this year in anaheim gardens that a commercial property that  purpose of providing income is that economic impact for takings purposes is measured by the change in vat profitability if you will over time but what  they were in business they were selling cars they were servicing automobiles chrysler automobiles on the date of taking which was established as april th of two thousand and nine they were even still doing those same things on june th two thousand and nine the day the court issued the order requiring them to close and to shutter at that time there were three hundred and ninety seven thousand six hundred almost four hundred thousand brand new chrysler automobiles that had not yet been sold there were thirty one million chrysler automobiles on the road that would now or later  require servicing someone had to sell those new cars someone had to service existing automobiles and our contention is that these dealers were in business doing that and maybe your theory as i understand it is that there would have been a chapter seven liquidation but that it would have been an orderly liquidation which would have allowed dealers to continue to engage in business for some period of time and you can calculate the value of the franchise by using that in incomes right  yes your honor with this exception i think the chapter seven liquidation is sort of independent of what the income stream the dealer's income stream resulted from the sale of cars that they had already purchased remember that a dealer purchases the automobiles that are in the showroom so they own the cars they own the equipment to service the automobiles and they own property here is the franchise agreement she found that in the butt for world that there would have been a chapter seven liquidation and immediate rejection of the franchise  under under under that phony how would it be that the franchise agreement about you that finding is legally incorrect your honor a rejection occurs under eleven u s c three chrysler sold its assets to the new fia chrysler corporation it was able to reject contracts and accept others under section three hundred and sixty three in a chapter seven there is no  the sense and thus no rejection of contracts so that was absolutely wrong under bankruptcy law a reserve the rest of my time the court has no further questions ok hearing please the court overwhelming evidence of record work the trial court's conclusion that the government did not coerce chrysler trajectory one hundred and eighty nine of its three thousand dealer franchise agreements bankruptcy this patient and there but if it doesn't the court also held an rejected what happened to what's concrete changes did that bring about with respect to the dealers here is the word shutter correct them had were selling other cars like the sequence of events here is that chrysler filed for bankruptcy on april th between that time and june th when the when the franchise agreements were ultimately rejected plaintiff the dealers still have work chrysler dealers hypothetical world where there was a chapter seven liquidation ever ejection of the agreements i call mr morris who was trying to imply that somehow these dealers were still has made money in and bought for wasn't the only evidence there was there was documentary evidence both in connection with the bridge loan made in december of two thousand and eight and the viability of the viability plan was submitted in february two thousand  nine chrysler recognize that if it were dated in bankruptcy under chapter seven all of its dealerships with would be closed and mr nardelli the c o of  testified that if they had it in chapter seven bankruptcy all the dealership would be gone it would be like south that's the term he used so there was no dispute at trial about whether or not reviewed all of the twelve experts reviewed all the fact testimony reviewed the five hundred and forty two exhibits that were submitted and she decided based on this overwhelming evidence a plaintiff did not meet their burden of showing that they would have had economic value in a buck for world  there's just no question about it but we don't even need to get get there if the court finds that there was no coercion here and there most definitely was not mr marsalis suggested that somehow plan and in the st meeting after submitting the plan they met with the auto team and said that they had too many dealers and it was bad for their brand their brand then in april two thousand and nine a month prior to chrysler's bankruptcy made reference to for years chrysler had been experiencing financial difficulties and one of the things they thought that would help them deal with those financial difficulties would be to go to more of a sort of toyota approach to selling cars where you have all of your brands under one roof and before before they realized that they had one dodge dealer in one part of town and one dealer in the other part of town so they wanted to put them all under a roof so maybe maybe let me just ask one more question and why help me understand as an economic matter why detroit chrysler would think that putting them under one roof was a helpful thing because  ing the good will and the image of the company and they had nicer facilities they could have bigger facilities and better brands if they were all under one roof ok that was and that was a project then it was all about the project genesis preceded the financial crisis by least a year this was this this is not something that came about just of the matter because of the financial crisis this is a long this is a long standing buy chrysler and it's one that i can understand what your position is are you saying that maybe the evidence show that the government coerced them to go into bankruptcy but that they didn't coerce them to reject the franchise agreements that evidence show that the government neither coerced chrysler to go into bankruptcy or coerce them to reject the franc raymond but i mean evers was overwhelming that the government worked with chrysler to try to find a way to achieve viability and that was it that was its goal and there was testimony and there was take two billion dollars without chrysler going into bankruptcy the problem with that was that the secured lien holders did not want to do that and in fact there's a document in the record where  mr nardelli writes to the dealers on april th two thousand and nine and said the reason we are declaring bankruptcy is because we were not able to settle or get concessions from our secured lenders so it was evidence of the government as this is i'm quoting him because chrysler told us that part of becoming viable needed to include rationalizing the dealer network and mr bloom who was the head of the chrysler team when when the auto team a chrysler had submitted in february two thousand and nine dealership productions weren't even mentioned in that in that in that rejection of the viability plan so it was not like the government came into this whole process and said wow we you know what we don't like we don't like chrysler dealers we want them to get rid of them we're going to offer the money and force them into bankruptcy so that we can do this thing that was never ever part of the plan the whole objective of the auto team was to ensure that the dealers plane that somehow the government had this nefarious plan to get rid of dealerships that the dealers it's just not true and judge farzad always convinced of that i mean she wrote a one hundred and eighty dollars page opinion detailing all of the testimony all of the evidence think there was some discussion during the the dealer's part of the argument about what the standards should be and there's no question the judge far as don't apply the correct standard she she quoted from the ind decision she set out the five factors that the court identified in the decision and she had to make a decision as to whether or not the government coerced chrysler into going into bankruptcy and rejecting dealership agreements that there's just no question about that the terminated dealers that court order required immediately to day that they cease doing business as chrysler dealers take down their signs they could no longer sell used cars new cars as chrysler dealer used cars as certified chrysler dealer they could no longer perform certified chrysler service that ability the intellectual property at aching to that brand had significant value as to the economic impact as of any date you pick the the day chrysler filed bankruptcy the date the court order issued these dealers were in business and in fact those dealers who were not terminated continued in business so far from an absolute shut down as contended by the trial court and by the government on the date of filing a bankruptcy business could have continued with the on hand new cars used cars and servicing capability