and i hope that you will lose the argument with that in life we are dealing with some of the most prestigious firms in the city and we're also dealing with some of the wealthiest companies in africa in our in our country mostly ba sixteen million dollars or forty nine million dollars somewhere in that range i can imagine what that looks like and i'm here today to try to convince you that the court should have in response to our motion in response to the motion for several gentleman looked at that claim with some distrust for the purposes of summary judgment my job today to convince you that what the court did which way the evidence in response to the summary judgment rather than saying that we had overcome the presumption of insolvency now if you look at this case first blush the obvious question and the elephant in the room is well with the banks have a claim for sixty million dollars why are they different than anybody else why should they be treated anybody anywhere any differently than anybody else and i think i have five reasons why the banks do not have case i'm not sure of the others exactly it is a marginal march tenth of the year two thousand the date of the bankruptcy was april sixth two thousand plus or minus give or take twenty twenty five day twenty five based upon the agreement that's on forty five pages long that's all i understand the can say however the actual consent of the bank which is supposed to be attached is not attached to the review and nobody has i can't find that and i try to get to pay your bills as they come due in the ordinary course of business that you have the money to pay us back if you want that your assets those kind of representations now when the waiver an amendment agreement is executed the last thing the really really bothers me what i think should really bother you the concept of bankruptcy is equality of distribution or equality in a core equality of pain certain people people from two things one a learning agreement to protect one side secondly the waiver and amendment agreement number six when those indicate and perhaps you can correct me i the court has seen it this morning has attempted to litigate the administration of these bankruptcy estate and not litigate what's before the court which is a preference to action this was a very simple case that's worth a lot l course the judge has to weigh the evidence in a manner where there's no function there's no purpose to having a judge there at all what the two tasks of the supreme court set forth and actually used for the judge and w the question is whether the representation in your representation of solvency in the asset purchase agreement creates a genuine factual issue that can only be resolved by applying your oath to that because it could be reasonably two thousand and two thousand and one and the summary judgment motion wasn't heard in still october of two thousand and two here in complete accordance with andersen  be made by that party and then it now be used against the party that made the statement here the representation was made by the preposition answers and was being offered against the jet or and the priorities skeen and the in the in each case are in the in her which provides for equality of treatment of creditors within a bankruptcy estate not within the universe it claims would have had any value we can make thank you very much say look we all are owed this money together give me some money back and what i'm saying to you is if you look at there and you take the certificate of carlos the modest execute on march tenth which is eight days after the transfer