had they not sold their interests and before this case started had they not voluntarily relinquished their rights to bring derivative claims there was that alternative exactly right it is there a standing problem here is well if these plaintiffs are proceeding slowly and there is individual capacity and they're no longer have any ownership interest and beyond what standard do they have to pursue a legal malpractise claim related to the handling of the river the claims of one field that's exactly that's exactly right your honor we have we have described it in terms of the damages problem but i think that there what you've just identified just are two sides of the same coin the bottom line here is they have not that these points have not been injured they cannot bring in individual capacity action they have no standing in your to use your right to bring an individual capacity action to recover for another party's and that's what they're seeking and that's what and that's the fundamental problem with the case is that they do not have a guilty to recover on behalf of the comp and they couldn't recover on behalf of the company in the  purpose of suing simply austin but while there was such a religious that fact does not show that there would be much it's a black letter of loss that was a personal loss on and it was a company looks as to a three hundred thousand dollars judgment and with the first history correct help we believe is the same analysis  otherwise these plans will put themselves in a dramatically better position than they ever would have been had they been successful in underlining this ports cases from  no other questions thank you thank you a statement made at the conclusion those briefs yes i found to be particularly inflammatory and if the conclusion of the brief again that you did not sign is there was a hypothetical that was set forth that said quote squarely on minds with the issues in this case as against by opposing counsel just argued the brief then asserts quote if the law supposes that the law is an idiot could take the position advanced by the other side and i think probably the most important question when you see something like that is if this court actually agrees with opposing counsel's position in this case does that make us is and idiots as well and that's the problem with the cute reference so again you're at a severe disadvantage if you didn't say it i'm sure the message will get back to the author of it but just your thoughts o mcguire woods is taking the position in this case that although it was hired to represent these clients zealously and although they told these clients you they intentionally and more fully failed to join simply in austin as a defendant in those actions they represented things that are clear duty and now now the third defendant they take the position that although they received hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees judgment would have been awarded to your clients personally and the individual compare isn't the answers or old norse it's not zero illegal conduct to deprive the entity of serious assets in a circumstance such as this the illinois supreme court yeah it was a long time ago says that there's an exception here where the individuals should be able to benefit because she gives the money to the entity in that circumstance would benefit the wrong door and that case i frankly of corporate governance rule seven point zero one b the following is stated in the case of a closely held corporation the court in his discretion as the supreme court did back in eight hundred ninety seven major treat an action raising derivative claims as a direct action and exempt from any restrictions typically the pain in the riveter who had occasion as long as third will if if supported or he's with us and agrees with the appellate court which we believe got it right we're only asking for a trial we're only asking to have an opportunity to i have this rare your client's no longer longer here any owners of the claims rose before they got rid of their marriage but at this time they don't have any and that's that they have no interest in in certain derivative legal claims that belong exclusively to be that's the point just thomas that's a point of seven on one p c it it in that should be compensated for those rock for those claims all minority shareholders oppose those who have joined in the lawsuit and those who have not will share in any recovery on a program to shape basis so that they've already was no no no damage here i mean they have copied three hundred thousand dollars for doing nothing and now they have and maybe this is what prompts the kind of phone that was at the end of this  in my judgment respect legal hypocrisy to say that we fail we admit that we not may not be out of their mouths but it's out of their actions we  we preach in foot do sherry duty but so what we want more money that that's true that it should shock not only our profession but the public as well simply in austin healey your guilt appreciate yes these people require workers when they brought this lawsuit they knew that it except disqualify simply in last eight and that he's serious violations and we will when we try the case articulated damage or so so they still if they still had an interest in dealing with the i think their interest whether they have an interest in dealing today or before is is sort of a red herring the claims against we have proved the case within the case and we all know that's a hypothetical process but our claims are rose before we got rid of those interest and i don't think that that in any way is  our case is different and  of importance to the illinois practitioner and this is on the issue of  of importance to the illinois practitioners the fact that the law in the state is far from well settled in brown versus de young our case and this case the court treated the misappropriated money as a fun out of which dividends should be declared and awarded the innocent shareholders their proportions share of the amount due to the corporation so will get a for under this reading  we won't be able to present to back or acting as a court of equity like this court action as part of equity and say that under the brown case and under seven point zero one gate we should be able to now that plaintiffs no longer have any ownership stake in peel it did at one time they don't know that's true what possible interest did they have in determining whether why your woods he handled the derivative claims two thousand and six and two thousand and seven when they were being told that they get a recovery in a derivative action that that we can't proceed we have to assume consistent with what's holiday how do you dress mr cummins argument with respect to standing in that at the time that the plane at the time of the malpractise the the plaintiff did have an