that i'm going to need you to help me a lot more specifically if they've got insurance right that says if the price of corn drops below a certain point the ensure will make up the difference so that the farmer has some incentive to plant the first place might get that right it's ok so you've got insurance based on the market and they pay dividends that the farmers pay certain dividends to get takings in your complaint paragraph sixteen you say that mr davidson explaining why the army rejected the transaction so now that the transaction would be detrimental and business you'd taken claim to the interest  farmers and tax payers and therefore don't reject when you go on to talk more about this the regulatory action and the sale is part and parcel possibly of your proof exceptions never requested that the regulatory action take the company or did it take the proposed sale it took the proposed sale the result of refusing to allow the transaction to go forward while the company and so you take the burden on going to the government and asking for the higher the government says we're not going to do the there's some hope take our transaction or that our transaction fail because we didn't meet the condition in this case assignments of almost this year in time you believe the result of the regulatory action and we're not contesting that the government does not have a right to exercise its authority regulatory but there is a point there where's the regulation goes to regular the government can properly it has in its power to prevent a sale of assets correct under certain circumstances yes what is the basis for that is a regulation that provides that in this case ministry remedies by making a claim to the deputy secretary and then presumably going to now the i guess the government board of contract appeals then the agriculture board what is your answer to that for the same reason that against the corporation that would make a difference with i'm sorry if it's if it's in other words isn't the question here what is the true nature of the claim everyone would agree with that which is the olympics right and you're correct in it and isn't the two isn't the real answer to the government's administrative periods last argument don't we have to decide whether there was a claim that should have been filed against the administrator and then pursued to the board of contract  says the record here is a little fuzzy we don't parties didn't provide us with a copy of the of the contract the s r a the government says this is a contract action we don't have a contract there's a dispute as to exactly what happened when when the permission was sought for this transfer is the record at least as far as we're concerned coheed enough for us to decide would you like to reserve the remainder of your time  is the united states being sued for taking property for public purposes or is the corporation being sued when it isn't in your brief and pages well it looks to me like if you look at the decision that the two key decisions here seem to be number one the district court decision and most importantly i think decisions both seem to assume that this is a takings on because they never say it's not a takings claim rather they seem to suggest it is by this you said page thirteen but there's no breach of contract claim here correct right and you seem to say it pages one nine in twenty is that they're asserting a takings c let's assume is it your position that if there is a bona fide a takings claim ok that that claim is not properly in the court of federal claims assume we have a i agree it seems to me that if in fact there's a disguise taking place in other words if there's really a claim that's a claim a contract claim then they're out of luck they've got to be in the district court no question about it but let's assume for the moment that it is indeed a bona fide takings going for an amount in excess of ten thousand dollars is it your position the government's position that proposition that congress intended to take away from the jurisdiction of the court it claims coverage over a true underlying true bonafied an underlying bona fide  and i would think the government would want a bonafide takings playing on a file to be in the court of federal crimes because that's the whole purpose of the court of federal claims to defend suits against the government in a sovereign capacity with exceptions you know we recognize we're taking spying i would things in government's interest i think it may be legally correct to be in the court of federal claims and that's where  congress set up a statute where the government decides claims in the constitution against the government in excess of ten thousand dollars and this is certainly you've said a takings claim and isn't that for that the takings claim is a suit against the sci fi takings claim is brought against the united states in a sovereign capacity and if congress had said that they wanted that regime change wouldn't they have done that  byron against just the language they didn't bring in the suit by you didn't bring the suit and there's no suit against the f c c i see if there's a taking  if if in fact it is taking spline and it goes to trial and then when they lose then they lose on summary judgment they may lose after trial but it is a see it appears the agency and agencies but let me ask you this this is a wiener says that we have enough on this record to decide this case and he says we can we can rule he would say we can rule that the transfer was proper or improper based on the record we have before us do you think that's the case because the parties didn't provide us with with very much you we didn't get a copy in the standard reinsurance agreement there's a conflict as what exactly happened and there is there is authority for the proposition the case can be sent back for a determination as to the true nature of the claim well if if the  determination is going to turn on the issue of whether or not this is true a taking away or whether it's a contract like i would say absolutely that work does not have enough information to record that was considered wave provisions that standard contract the agency said no we want god bless you do certain things raining hell said well we're not interested in doing those things therefore we choose not to i don't know if this court doesn't have enough information to make that on its own should that be made by the disk recorder the court of federal climes i think that the decision should be made by reporter better by and by because there has not been a claim asserted against the corporation and i think that the under the rules of leaving the allegations in the wind must be accepted as true the government's burden to show that this is in fact a breach of contract by the government is not car