yourself so you can you take it all as profit or you can take it all as wages or you can take it all as the value of the business it's up to you this isn't like a you know a an adverse part not i was party but a non related party transaction officials the same person but i guess some my my thought pattern is that makes sense that consistency makes sense if you stay inside the framework but big big b p like arguably exhausted maybe your view of them would be the system the recovery within the system and the way the system is built to avoid that by saying i'll be yes ok now you have to be under the under section ten of the big settlement that's only claim that you have and now somebody comes up to you and says we want you to settle your beilke like you say under what terms you go back and forth like you do in any sort of those she asian and you say yes i settle it at that point the black box move the world we're going to come up with a number it has to always include that advantage we have today but what are the advantages that the claimants have to always get in other words i'm assuming your theory of this whole thing is the framework we have a confidential process just fix but we're going to look behind that curtain and make sure the business didn't lose it double counting i'm asking you when we start looking behind what are we going to be giving claimants that they can never to the lawyers making a determination is this plane over getting my reply i think you said before and it's certainly been my understanding for the last seven years is the judge that knows this entire system all aspects is just for being correct if you were persuasive would you object to us remaining so the judge barbier can interpret the settlement agreement in the first instance and how it relates to both programs why wouldn't you let him take a crack at these or so your honor obviously this court has you know into a double recovery decision on what what really caused you to double recovery is when there's multiple payments from within the court supervised settlement from within four corners of the document and that's not what's present today the business cases were remain in the court supervised settlement growth but obviously in this situation they decided to settle their business as a traditional settlement as a side of an appeal panel decisions and in their command and their and their business case but again that withdrawal of the business cla what were you being paid for for the business loss itself would say business losses business profits we don't and we don't have there's nothing in the record under the new details of how those figures were derived from it was a take it or leave it approach secretive also had to sign off on that as well those releases are not are not part of the record today on the only thing up of the record today really at issue today is the ideal claim the ideal framework not to the nuts really why we're here today there is no double recovery there's been uniform aspects of the subtle but what were your business excluded from your business last salaries and compensation that were paid to the business owner clients would want therefore necessarily we would always review these black box things to make sure the claimants got something but yeah i mean they're separate losses again we're looking at a job you know but you understand my question if they prevail and the me can not opt out of the fleischmann to process would there be anything the battle and fix all would be entitled to we would have to look behind the number to make sure they didn't get  it presumably because with the placement was cited in that briefing to the appeal panel that this is this is a proper interpretation and application of it these are yield claims are permissible under the terms of the settlement there's no double recovery double or cover it was obviated by the withdrawal of the business claim and that's that's the only issue really you know did from from the consolidated case argument moments ago that you listen to where where you heard the response but but it can't be so because  the only ones under the settlement thats it indeed the settlement can't control from the shadows and that's essentially what b p is asking you to do is rewrite the settlement and say well if a business is paid somehow or another than necessarily the owner officers are entitled to compensation about the mutual payments and again they uphill to claim its position that the withdrawal of the b e all claim obviates any double recovery recovery exists within the confines of the four corners of the document when there is a paid b e actually dropped looks appears to adopt a betes argument that the offering were controls regardless of where the you know the business or how the business was paid and that was the argument they tried to do also in in the appeal panel decision to zero one seven two to six and that was actually the appointed to run the same process things and calculations and that's i think that's the biggest crux and that's what all these decisions have upheld when you took that claim out of the claims process if it's not controlled by exhibit four anymore and that's why there is no double do that and b p did not anticipate that this could possibly happen because again we thought that we had put a dagger through the heart of this thing and the last time we had this this case about the relationship between the two frameworks if you are a business owner you cannot file an i claim that's it that's i thought that's what the court held last time and if that's the case that no matter how you resolve or be you know claim you can't then manage to change the settlement and start have settled thousands of claims so just kind of do the math in your head the neutrals are settling lots and lots of b claims where is everybody else where all the other io claimants are saying oh you know what now we get a they didn't file these claims because one either understood all along these position to be correct that you can't use the high yield framework if you're a business owner but two they also show that most of read this course decision and fleischmann to slash double recovery all go their way i'm in no where speck do i want to denigrate the hard work of the appeal panels the people panels have had a heroic job because there's been hundreds of thousands of claims that have gone through them but i refer the court to section six of the settlement there between ten and twenty of these people we don't know who they are you know for all we know it's the same it's the same folks who keep deciding the same things you don't how claims are allocated within the appeal panel so as we said in our twenty eight a response an article three court doesn't decide questions of law by the show of hands now i have seen this cascade effect before but whether the district court abused its discretion denying review does depend in part of the show of hands well that is in part and i want to emphasize that in part i thought you were saying in the show of hands you're relying on misfeatures case to be the one hand up on the other side that was your assertion  rye in the settlement program now when this court is indicating its own authority judge barbi i think as it is has responsibility to grant review when the decision is so against the grain of what this court has said if you say  not they're all almost catastrophic leigh wrong correct or are they cocked but but why then or haven't you why would you be saying the judge barbie issue says that placement too is completely silent about the rule of neutral