case may not be the strongest case in the courts are it nice passes the threshold of a motion to dismiss and allows the court then to make the proper findings of fact because the court well knows even if there is an issue very few exceptions for another year however in the intervening time assuming that one of those extra options would apply and allow you to buy the stock in the first place you are immediately hit with an income nine dollars and eighty six cents or even one cents a share the hundred thousand shares that he could purchase were two dollars into fifty respectively that would have been he would have to have a purchase money two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars you would deduct that down from one hundred thousand times nine hundred eighty nine would give you about seven hundred sixty thousand dollars in ordinary income quick question here you got off track the question was what difference does it make if this registered or not i think the point you're trying to make is that in order to pay the tax bill he would have to sell some of it in order to pay the taxes if it's registered he could sell it  understanding that he is not restricted on who he can sell or basis over so this is the advantage and disadvantage really is that he can't realize his tax money come up with his tax money from somewhere else for a year that's correct and the cost on the face of it you look at it it does talk about that these actions will be exercisable for a period of five years from datagrams then the next the next agreement in time is the ma missing from the record that part of the not specifically away aged within the complaint itself but you can there are changes in my client's rights over time in the course of these agreements it does  only when it comes back to this point where he wants to get the options that they come up with in q s o even by mr rubin standard and whether in response to one mr doing finally does retain counsel and november of two or consideration yes yes sure i'm sorry for not being that he can use me nothing and that's what the company gave him the integration question was not briefed before the district court appearance never raised that these were not integrated agreements that's an issue that's been raised for the first time on appeal getting back to the pro evidence question very important point i the books of this case the nevada supreme court as a threshold matter found that agreement to be far from a model of clarity as the district court found in this case and i think this court should find the nth us that all agreements are unambiguous on their face so you really don't substitute for an agreement between the parties which is essentially what they're asking this court to do here the offered for all evidence which is directly at odds with the later discovery that would change the language of the contracts in this case and i think that's the key point thank you in terms of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim i think if you look at a long line of nevada supreme court cases in cases where the alleged emotional distress is not secondary to physical injuries as it is not here the supreme court has always required a higher showing of physical impact o injury be in the complaint not a proof requirement and plaintiff doesn't say yes we've we've articulated a physical impact or injury they just simply state that we've satisfied the elements of the case  this idea that there is no obligation in its whole integrated package under any meaner whatsoever that my client had any or expectation an entitlement to have his shares registered into being c so that those are those are questions of fast in terms of agreement integrated and in this case we actually have a series of agreements need to be looked at her with you thank you very much for your argument  the case of doing versus m p r gaming group is now