that we are taking a look at the at the bank and that corporate structure that was organized for purposes of a litigation war holders should choose to get the asset whether that be buying stock or whether it be by cash the litigation warrant holders held at that point what they reasonably believed is what they really do believe that that they were going to be the intended beneficiaries of that litigation asset is ever reasonable believe of course it was and i say that because the entire purpose of the warrant to green was set up to benefit the litigation or holders it certainly was not set up for the purpose of protecting the government and it certainly was not set up for the purpose of protecting the bank and nor was it set up for the purpose of the of protecting j p morgan you know let me see if i understand it again  whatever your recovery as i'll get if you proceed with the cause of action in court the court would enter a judgment in favor of you to correct everything favor of you and me i believe that that is correct and then later if you refuse to pay me my fifty percent i would shoot you in another action correct that possible your own well you know that that would be my remedy so why those downstream questions why isn't this question of whether the litigation foreign holders harken title to fifty five percent of something why isn't that a question which is outside the scope of the dispute in this case because it is a separate contract a right deriving from a separate contract from the contract  i think as in my hypothetical case i appreciate your honor let me try to address this i believe really that there is two reasons for this the first is the litigation that is going on right now being litigated is who has the right to the anchor judgment now that becomes very very important with regard to the key issues are holders at the interveners in this action in the reason that it becomes important for will see the third harding to intervene and this is because we believe based upon the actions of j p morgan as well as the government that any decision that is going to be made and according to federal plans will impede a pair our interest from your example you around you look at it in the difference in the hypothetical those close to me you look at it in a separate actions it can be brought up far enough apart from what from the original actions the problem is that we may not have that right in fact i don't think that we are not one of the core to several planes makes the decisions for who owns the anchor litigation you might want to make that concession well appropriate time the most appropriate time is when there is going to be a decision that's going to be made by the court of who was the litigation right now we have an action that has been brought against the government to  intervene in the court of federal planes the the property and issue of the anchor litigation which we are claiming the right to and i think are of a right sort of like it is ours we were the we were the intended but we didn't lose that because the purchase and assumption agreement really preserve them for the purpose of assumption agreement created vehicles so the asset which we had a beneficial interest in was transferred other shareholders slash board told but that's not what happened at every time when the litigation war holder's rights were going to be affected in other words when there was a merger or a successor of another company what happened the rights of the litigation war homes were always protected in other words they had an interest it was an interest in the mechanism of how they were going to be paid it was an interest in the litigation and t one party which of the various entities that are out here and play here is the entity against which you have a that's fine but but there's going to be a resolution between the two of them i take it and i'm not sure i completely understand all of the nuances of the current and the proceedings in the court that are playing so that i would assume there's going to be a resolution in favor of one or the other those two parties and you're telling us that you will have a right against one or the other of those two parties depending on who is determined to be the owner of th why isn't that a right that's not prejudiced by however that gets resolved i appreciate that because i think how that issue is going to be resolved at the court of federals and your honor it's not just who has its who has a right to the we're running your clocks now for the time bankruptcy court and there are or different things that the court might have considered that they felt the fancy court didn't properly consider but that was a matter for the back to court that was not a matter for the court of federal claims to that was transferred as part of the purchase an assumption a bridge between the f b i vs receiver and j p board our position actually is that that was the the contract does it just that it was one of the assets not transferred that's the basis for our of this  j p morgan the pending in the quarter federal plans but that doesn't help the world or is here because even if they disagree with the bankruptcy courts ruling as to what its jurisdiction was their remedy is to appeal to the district court it's not to mount a collateral attack in the court federal place now the me again the number of different entities that are floating around here is a little confusing but one of the things that the bankruptcy judge ruled on at the very  action they wish to file a claim in the receivership or sued j p morgan based on who gets the money if those are options although under the class decision at the theater super be moving money from one pocket into the other pocket would be appropriate to purchasing assumption agreement of september twenty fifth that would support such a conclusion prejudice there are furry and some other proceeding to pursue whoever they think they have a contractual obligation for them to get a portion of the judgment but a judge reported out the warner agreement makes crystal clear that one hundred percent of the judgment proceeds in this case go to the plaintiff whether the plaintiff or some successor in interest to the plaintiff has a contractual obligation to remit a percentage of those judgment proceeds to the interveners can be  interviewer's couple that with the extremes all the way that would be imposed on this case that has already been pending for nineteen years this is not simply a matter of of the  transactional documents up there there will be summary judgment motions there will be a trial there will be a feel this case will go on for years more beyond what is already going on and finding this is an essential prerequisite of a role of motion under either rule relates to the additional issues that the interviewers mcbrayer we've been up to this court already we're back on remand we've been on remand for three years the interveners proposed to propose men under half of new plaintiffs against the new federal agency that has never been involved in this case asserting a breach of a contract that was not formed until after the trial court's judgment in this case the array of new issues with prolong this case by again by multiple years and there's absolutely no reason to do that given certain assets and i think it's pretty clear at this point in time the one of the assets that was conveyed what the anchor litigation and the question becomes who has a right to that and when it was conveyed at the time prior to the time  bankruptcy it conveyed data assets with all liabilities liens attached it's really important because then two years later in the bankruptcy court the f b i he comes in and j p morgan different and opposite they say get it where gets the anchor litigation gets it free and clear of liens claims interest and conferences of any person including without limitation the liens claims interest in accomplices of holders of litigation tracking workers that is exactly opposite to what was said two years earlier when the litigation and her litigation was