on the district court decision in order granting summary judgment in favor of guillen and denying f e d s cross motion for summary judgment in the issue before the district court was repaid the evidence in the record was that in two thousand the lot on the hill and reported in its tax returns that it had a negative net worth i believe around ten million dollars county has been extremely active in the fundamentalist cases that in this case however the district judge went beyond those three elements i talked about you then file or keep the team at suit against apple saying well we respond they're being sued therefore they have to post security to cover that matter to start a proper use of care team and i believe it is your just for me that you are going to there's a certain problem in this doctrine because as you stated on the one hand you have to show that there is that the bonding company is at risk of nonpa is a factor to be considered then i believe that that would have to be a faction target that just report level there would have to be evidence one way or the other determining is a there was a discussion about which law should apply and we submit that illinois law should apply in this case there are various factors that wisconsin applies if this is a diversity case and the district court sitting in diversity would apply the law of the state where it sits including its choice of law rules and there are five factors are set forth in our appeal brief and its substance illinois was organized there but you know and did it on a job in cook county over here it was the harbor thirty first street near mccormick place it was public illinois public owner illinois public funding the final was issued under the illinois public construction bind act which i submit embodies a policy by the general assembly of illinois that it wants to have subcontractors and suppliers paid on public jobs the joint venture that dylan entered into respond in illinois so illinois has a great deal of interest in the outcome of a case where his wisconsin has and with that i will reserve the balance of my time if it's all right with the court things that are released here in there in lies the rub of the problem of f in these arguments here if they're seeking this procedural device a form of literary injunction what is it alternately preserving the status quo point that if there is a contractual remedy equitable remedies are superseded there's case law that was almost mirror image in most states this presents almost the mirror image reversal of that question because the contractual remedies have been specifically negotiated away in return for a premium and then all of a sudden they're trying to assert that it's a legal right that now blossoms under the form of equity after the pemex is quote it should be entitled to the remedy as drastic although we will not disturb a district court's decision to grant an injunction and last that is an abuse of discretion that's what the record indicated in the right nothing to see here move along that can't be what the doctor and it's not self destructive is it you know i don't think so at all and i don't think that's what the district court was intending to apply i think it's a very it works as i read it simply that this particular common law claim is internally incoherent and anybody who asserts it loose is off the bat i don't think that that's what the district court reference and indicating i don't see it i don't see a basis for the mary relief and i think that there was within the discretion of the court and i think it all comes down to what is the standard of review if you look at what i think ultimately when it comes down to it both sides agree that to the extent that there is a law illinois or wisconsin that comes down to receiving thirty shipping guarantee section twenty one comments at all it's the worry of position and that wisconsin were thirty actually peers in the same case recognises this doctrine and it requires a current breach there is no evidence of the current breached or there's no evidence of anything that satisfies what would otherwise be considered a current breach believe it is about two point three the dollar amount that is currently being held is the face amount of the five lean claims that are presently remaining that were identified in the reply brief that was submitted by f and d which was at the time statute specifically mandates that if a lien claim is determined to be invalid those funds must be paid to the general contractor that the public owner has no in fact paid thirty could be depending on what the amount of the payment is and that's a partial settlement i don't know but if they're fully paid and they equal the amount of the pine claims in that case i believe i