you need an allegation to that point that the government assumed the contract if you're saying that the government took your contract that the government stepped into shoes and took over your contract and exercised their planes and it's a suppose i thought that  a actually leaves a whole lot more unclarified than them clarified that said well we have there was not an action of specifically target of the contract at all so in the absence of that we don't need to think about choice that is allowed under review three sixty five or three sixty three would you still say they had no property interest because that choice was always part of the background of bankruptcy law just wanted to stand your eyes h are directed to make the choice of loose let's go just on through sixty three thirty sixty five i'm sorry so there's no no new you are three sixty five three sixty five as always said the executor or a contract can be assumed or not and property interest in not having the debtor in possession exercise this background bankruptcy authority under compulsion from the government no they do not but they might have an interest in bankruptcy law that creates a range of possible choices that could affect a contract for example or some other property interest and if the government now let's let's assume they use some sort of c rights question which i'm not sure it is what you're really saying that if a private lender could come into bankruptcy and do this there wouldn't be a thief is a result of that as a result of the actions taken by the bankruptcy  and taken under the statute and the three sixty five and you're saying the government ought to be able to know the same thing and the question is is the government doing the same thing or is it doing something different and what this court has said is i was going to loan money which may be permissible but i don't i don't think this is quickly i'm a proprietary of respect for your honor that if you look at the government's motives and accept it previous to the government in fact is all of that in the public interest so led to the terminations of them was that the government hands it sixty percent equity interest and if so it also have some kind of actual control of perfect interest in not continuing these contracts they don't make cars anymore right why do we need dealers so the real decision was the new company's decision not to purchase is just focusing on g m new g m had sixty was sixty percent owned in equity by the united states i believe ultimately yes it was and did the united states at that point have essentially loosely speaking managerial control or not even responsive to your inquiries but i would like to start out by noting that this is not the first time we've sort of government take the position that as a matter of law we will apply this and that people who are given an coming in those original bridge loans and there was an obvious the economy was a shambles and people were scrambling to see what they could say to make the best decisions they could make so enormous amount of money was pumped in to the auto companies to try and stabilize things to go to the question of of fog of first of all of the overall the overall view of the government's position as well if there's no regulation of force the south becomes there's no statute the forces central the real question is is on why aren't other litter stepping up to act and the nature of big steel is other lenders don't step up to act because they can't compete with them agree that there was no possibility of other lenders the asking there was at least one other lender going it incrementally smaller our side of it did try to step up the government to them what so the reality is is that in this case  did if that if the same would have gone to liquidation and something government intervention in the dealerships would have been valueless under those circumstances why for the taking for the government to come in and say well sa but we want certain conditions to be says well but first of all assuming that the fact which is a fact question that will serve if you put in a trial that said the fact is that there was a too big to fail environment that process had had on on that set i got a little confused about some of the numbers about how ninety nine percent of the dealers took g m steal our are all of your clients here out of business all our clients of a to the primal vision of elements of time central but he was concerned about what the call it was really he and i had a very frank and somewhat humorous exchange about my indifference to what we called it and he was assuring me that the federal circuit would care a lot about what we or term it was coined by professor sherry davidoff which is that the government acted here under the emergency economic stabilization act and there are five paragraph policy statements that have been closed with forty by lot of dealers that's what we're going to impose as one of the big conditions of making loves and so one of the fact lessons that we have to deal with when we try this case your honor is going to be what in fact that a condition what the government itself who says now had no value by this that it had being word two thousand to five billion dollars so so this property had some significant value the government made a conscious decision it did not want to pa now the whole scheme that was in march or sit down with chrysler and general motors and say we're to work together to create a three sixty three bankruptcy and we're going to find a way to not pay these people all the for the value of their other dealerships there is no money to pay them two point two five billion this it would be a waste of general motors money they didn't say it was awaiting the chrysler money is that it would be a waste of taxpayer money so on that that is a pre sentence of the vamps we believe we would findings one about liquidation being the only alternative at least making that finding in what is it may or june a devout or nine about whether there were any of their lender at least  in may or june of two thousand and nine because my question is is there does your case either depend on disputing those findings or do you in fact its speed as an alternative ground or saying is the government would have stepped in the question is if the government did not step in if it made a decision which you say you would not have me would that liquidation necessarily follow up well i  stand on the question that the simple question is do you can pass the thing government had not intervened as a lender that the companies would have gone into liquidation i really don't know american the reason i don't think it could have happened is because and i think will prove this is to the extent we need to for economic reasons and for political