structured settlements plaintiffs contend that the defendants agreed to make monthly payments based on a specified amount in the settlement agreement say entered into in the underlying litigation and i hope i get this now right when point six point two million was the present value of the monthly payments that were listed in that settlement agreement  really a mediation and then both sides both represented by counsel come to an agreement that one point six whatever million is the present value of the following stream of payments correct  dollars we will pay you or arrange to have you paid the following monthly installments for the following period of time if if you look at the agreement and in the latter way that of course leaves room as a commercial manner for the for the company that's ultimately on the on the hook for the money to pay it's that a person in that position would look at where a reasonable person would know that the company is going to make a profit some top and would expect that all two hundred thousand dollars would be given to their benefit company that is the expert the i g companies says we are going to a new it ties two hundred thousand dollars we don't think that can be read as a matter of say well really love we're doing we ignore the fact that the that the monthly payments were special five in specific dollar amounts in other words you're you're you're telling us how it it might well be feel to read a see is how someone would say this is mostly a moment must be calculated on the basis that there will be no cost of doing new ties two hundred thousand dollars we promised the present value of one point six or two million dollars so do that and look over the commission and the costs nothing says a bed in in which case they would require more than two hundred thousand dollars wrexham to them would pay more than two hundred thousand dollars yeah but the contract doesn't say lexington will pay only two hundred thousand dollars to the new accompany  made a settlement agreement made promises to the crisis that doesn't mean that they couldn't also be paying money to the new lady cop buddy to the scene of what they promised to the pla the sony agreement doesn't say we will spend two hundred thousand and two hundred thousand dollars only with respect to an annuity for you so a very different contract that says we will the new ties two hundred thousand dollars for you and a new ties means to take a lump sum movie i don't know sounds ambiguous and maybe if they didn't specify what p t payments were actually going to be then you could have a preacher contract action saying this isn't a big it was close you should construe it against the the stream of payment from fact hermie at two hundred ninety six pounds and present value because they were lying to you would you have for fraud because i think that's the theory the theory is that everything i just said could be packed settle for nine hundred thousand dollars held lump sum payment of seven hundred thousand dollars and they would receive as pointed out by the court were a series of specific monthly payments spread out over twenty years you know there's been some discussion of whether there is any ambiguity in the language that would prevent plaintiffs theory to go forward i understand you're taking the position there is no ambiguity but where you are saying real use not so much that there is a a nine b failure but there is a nine b c access to disclose facts on the basis of which you can opportunity to address all of the decisions in these that we are still arguing about now with respect to their amended complaint and thank seventy two section two point zero the of the agreement says this in consideration of the really set forth above that offended and in the schiller agreed to pay to the individuals named below the cash payments and the i'm out of one point six four two million which they say on the next page isn't total present value of the periodic payments i understand this is a document that if you look at that particular allegation you have you have alleged fraud he didn't say that reading the a series of contract documents  together that in fact that that allegation can reasonably be understood they were not likely statements the court didn't explain where they were whether it was taking into account the contracts or not so i don't know your honor to be frank