not a party to the very contract which was the basis of his claim only channel once he tripped over the first for channel trips over the second hurdle it did not make a substantial contribution to th if they did land what if they did during a bankruptcy planned hearing the entire issue of whether or not there was a claim was disputed came up and it was is it really not the normal  planet they propose but that they can test is that the filing by price of his clay yes it was not written contracts because under that because the reason there was no written objection to the claim was because during one of the many bankruptcy hearings that was held for the confirmation of this of this plan the issue came up this to whether it was necessary at that point in time to file a written objection because the plan if it were to be confirmed would get rid of the queen in its entirety but was the claim disallowed by the by the bankrupt the state it was but there was no need to file a written objection at that time because if the plan was confirmed the claim would just disappear but it was never adjudicated on its merits nor was it ever addressed on its merits or still standing there it was dismissed the confirmation hearing that the dad was concerned that channel and price would share in the distribution to creditors and they wanted to make it clear that that was not going to happen because under the plan and channel on price disputed does not mean that a person is not a creditor understand actions that the equivalent of an objection when you dispute well that's not just a minute you're i respectfully and infections when you file something in writing with the court knowing jointly entitled to ministry of claim and the amount of two hundred six thousand three hundred seventeen dollars based upon their substantial contribution and the contribution was not simply the funding of the plan although that was important the to the attorneys who objected to confirmation of the plan in full because as we know the debtor stridently opposed confirmation of the plan and forced it even provided a substantial balance to the equity holder it was never allowed or just a lot of just you got it went away with the reorganization kind of became part of the reorganization went away so the whether or not he was going to prevail one way or the other was not important but it had never been disallowed so that's  contribution you want to save your life i don't think i can stave i think this is my only chance line for mr price at individually however it's not signed by mr price and he's not a party to the contract with regard to the objection to the point i think the record is quite clear that it was objected to despite the fact the fact that no objection has been filed should not be construed that acknowledgement by the debtor that those claims are without dispute so for the purposes of this push to be we're not going to make them go through the burden of now filing objections to the  i disagree your honor because because under this particular circumstances at the time that agreement was made the point and everybody understood that if the plan was confirmed there was no reason to determine whether the claim would be allowed or disallowed it wasn't going to be adjudicated if the plan was not confirmed that and we would go forward we would file an objection to the claim and it would be  first thing we would say is mr price you can't recover under this claim because you're not pardoned for the contract but because the plan was confirmed and the pain went away to then say that magically mr price becomes a creditor took it because he determine whether or not a substantial contribution is made the in the letter brief which channel filed they cited in re how wild campgrounds inc in the court stated right in that agreement that find that you know the funding the two million dollars by price and channel is a substantial contribution the problem with that fining is it is factually peroni it's because channel did not make the funding