cash collateral provision that was included in their amended chapter eleven plan which plan was filed and confirmed after the stipulation between not all of the information they requested but some information about the nature of the expenses that they wanted to pay i did release portion of those proceeds to the extent of  little over one hundred three thousand dollars which was more than what the man orton's had originally requested that they really don't deter you for a moment just to start with some threshold questions i had a bad wait for your opponent here argues that there were three of your arguments where one was whether the bankruptcy court urging concluding that article thirteen of the plan applied to the two thousand cra  we also submitted the transcript of the oral arguments made to the bankruptcy judge judge pappas in the bankruptcy court i think we've also submitted all briefing to the core and in the transcript is well where all of these issues were argued in court and addressed by the judge and frankly i think all of them five beginning at page thirteen fifty five those are excerpts of record certainly we disagree that any of those arguments for the way not preserved in that they were all argued  of the debtors i don't think are dealing in any farming they are still residing in the home on the property as indicated in the br resolution of this issue and it was essentially first sent to a stipulation between counsel to take that issue of the interplay between the cash collateral provision in the first  after the panel wardens failed to make the first annual payment under the chapter eleven plan to i ca and that would have been the approximate amount of two hundred thirty thousand judgment in the bankruptcy court soley on the issue of whether or not this cash collateral provision allowed the debtor to use these two thousand cross proceeds to the dis collateral under the plan and the a political law significant to that issue is the precise language of that provision itself that appears in the chapter eleven ninety eight crop proceeds were used by the debtor to finance their operation during the nineteen ninety nine croft year obviously that would have been cash collateral in the year two thousand it were supposed to use nine hundred ninety nine crop proceeds to pay the operating expenses for two thousand just records bankruptcy courts decision clearly shows that the debtor sold because there were two other large pre confirmation payments made we also know that at the time of confirmation there were payments made to both simplot and i ca and we also know that throughout the remainder of that farming year there at point according to your interpretation of this provision the plan is confirmed and so there is no longer any constantin dance to use the cash collateral there would been cashed collateral there because that would have been the nineteen ninety nine crop of proceeds that were being used for the farming expenses in the year two thousand the bankruptcy  estate and interest in those crop proceeds at that before and at the time of confirmation in the plan then provided that those proceeds were going to be able to be used by the debtors to continue complete confirmed and that that agreement becomes an agreement between the parties your interpretation of that i guess is article thirteen is that cash collateral in which you have security the cash collateral was already in the state because of crops that were sold and it was anticipated that that harish was going to be used to post confirmation defining those proper procedures that arose while there was a bankruptcy of state as opposed to the crop proceeds that occur in the end of two thousand or in two thousand confirmation and we have no objection and i think the plan called for that we understood that and there is nothing and consistent with our stipulation in that regard so i  ca after it made its agreement and it provided that nothing was going to affect that first priority lane except for subordinating of the up to three hundred thousand dollars to the fertilisers supplier and also providing that nothing in the future reorganization plans could alter amanda or modify any of the terms of the stipulation and also providing that any inconsistency is or any conflicts between that stipulation and the plan or any confirming or there after would be governed by the stipulation frankly i ca had very little interest any inconsistency is we're going to be governed by the stipulation as a consequence i e ca really had no input it all on this cash collateral damages is that they were put out of business but have in this particular case is that the start of the state court case we determined that the judge who actually signed the order confirming the plan which had to tip elations connected with such to be the one who interprets that particular plan we not have merely a contract here but we have an order from a court i find it interesting you're at your honour's that the approach used is to say we had it all becomes one of the from a background standpoint did we have farmers here who raised the tables and raised wheat and typically sold their potatoes later this spring that's when they could write the highest price they had indian leases that they had  into in december of the previous year which required an outlay of cash they had started to cost which would come into existence prior to them making a payment which was not due until may fifteenth so what happened was in this particular case they would use the funds as long as they were current and the farming operation which would get them through and tell the may fifteenth date when they would market the pendejo was just before hand and allowed to make the payments the creditors  the plan there is no budget in the plan there's no budget attached the plan there's no budget attached the order confirmation there is no budget attached to the stipulation the budget that has now become part of the record is one that was provided during the confirmation proceeding but if you're going to rely upon that stipulation then that stipulation is such that it does not suggest that that budget even the budget we ought to be looking at and no it's our position we were not out of compliance furthermore it's important that what happens particular case there were a kernel of payments they needed money for farming operations december they asked for the funds and they came back and said no you're not entitle to settle because we have a stipulation in the stipulation controls and that's the only thing that controls  day period and in this particular case the time the punch was shot in december there was no default that had been asserted we weren't even into the thirty day cure period that came later now with respect to this article thirteen i think it's important because you asked a question about that these parties are very well aware of what cash collateral about they are in bankruptcy they know what it's about in addition that they've been involved in cash collateral in the previous year at the time of confirmation prior to confirmation we have a plan provision that refers to cash collateral cash collateral is referred to previous to confirmation which is what it is and therefore explaining what it is and explaining it by definition takes it out of nearly a provision in bankruptcy and makes it a plan provision and what happens is if you read it it's entirety which required in any contract it's clear because the language refers to the this is not a one year concept this is the only way that these individuals these farmers are going to be able to continue to farm that is as judge pappas indicated their only source of funds what happened in the particular case of one thousand nine hundred nine they used their funds cash collateral gotten through to two thousand excuse me ninety eight in the ninety nine they then took those funds made some very significant payments knowing that they as long as they were current and as long as they were using money for farming operation they would continue to be able to use th funds so what happened is and this is the right to use cash a lot of short term and i give debtors do not make the payments stated above as stated above is all the payments made for several years now the works what happens  secondly you've had to understand very well for bankruptcy judges look at this particular issue and i think in the case of three there may be well an argument type it's a good argument that it's been delayed but none of them had any governmental claimants whatever the case may be and therefore i think that obviously ambiguity if that's what you're looking at in finding that's going to require you to could determine that that's a question of fact the finder the fact is the bankruptcy judge but the bankruptcy judge interpret his own order has already determined there is no ambiguity because he determined that how else how else would these farmers because that is the bat indicated you've got to have a practical implication what's going to happen is this court the bankruptcy court excuse me has to find that this plan is feasible otherwise you cannot confirm the plan and the plan is only fe they get to use this cash year to year he made that determination by signing an order of confirmation now i a c wants to take the essence of the entire plan out from the band or just because it puts them in a position where if they have to pay in december which is in essence what i c a o is say which is a rewrite of the agreement they don't have any funds they can't make the lease payments they get the start of the cost of their history and that is in essence why it's important this cash collateral provision article forty studio called thirty be enforced now it's interesting now in this particular case with respect to the law the law for to simple is just a matter that you look at it in its entirety and look at what is in the the minds and when you take them in the mind is not merely the stipulation i see what's to be concerned with there is language of the plan with respect to the payments and things that language as well as thirteen in their entirety has to be looked at the question of the other question of course raised is is with respect to in the end the essence of default is for example they said we use a provider certain information and yet if you look at the stipulation it was agreed upon there stipulation provide that that information was not required and tell april first of that next year in other words what they are doing  same thing as they were doing with respect to cash collateral they were bringing it forward and making all these things happen before the terms of the plan they required had the band boredoms know that they were going to require  they would not a paid such significant payments as they did in the spring just after confirmation to the tune of six hundred twenty thousand dollars which of these two part of the issue of anticipatory breach it's really an interesting issue because if you go back to the bankruptcy decision a the answer clouding the case did not see did stop plan b i recognize that they've done attempted to do a job with respect to read reference to all of these different provisions suggested this before the court i've been through those i don't see anything anywhere the suggest that they were in fact that concept before the before judge pappas judge pa somehow say what you're doing is you're supporting a subordinate is to put him into a lesser class and that clearly is not the case and put him into a leisure class that's what is really her to ask what would occur with respect for life and chemical is to say who had a lien against a clothing store were to say we have a lien against your inventory we have a lien against your cash but the only way you're going to continue in business is for you to use those funds or it's nothing different than did in fact happen the year before bankruptcy where i see a and simplot said you need funds from grain we will let you use those funds to harvest the potatoes now that they have a lean in th don't like this we think this is wrong but it is what they agreed to and therefore they wanted the court to change or rewrite their agreement because they don't like at this point in time this resolved it is what it is it's an op it's consent to use so that these people can raise their crops and give them a right eileen in the new crop and that's what they bargain for that's what they all receive with respect to the issue of ambiguity we don't think there's an ambiguity there's two courts now have found the ambiguity as they've looked at these various provisions and look at they all come together they're all construed and when they come together not only is there not a conflict but there is no ambiguity i really have nothing more to say  the court of any question thank you thank you very much  procedure remaining to pay its two thousand year and you'll probably plan payment in full from the two thousand prop that's the demand that was made for adequate insurance to this of suck forth and correspondence that are part of the well in the briefs that it's raised as an argument it's saying that they weren't in compliance with the plan and that they were in breach of the stipulation and because these are records number one they're required to provide to us but really takes me to one of the main arguments or hasn't really been addressed here dan that is this question about consistency between having first priority security lane and crop proceeds and apparently the bankruptcy court agree to lean back and you know that the creditors that they would be paying the bill and secured creditors i mean i i remember doing lean subordination agreements and somebody else is getting a higher security interest in the collateral that doesn't seem to be too relevant to whether you can use the cash proceeds to pay the vendors who are providing a service so i didn't understand that i was you know anything you can explain all i agree there was the only support nation the only thing provided in the stipulation that could affect the first lien priority position of i see a was the fertilizer supplier up to a spot specific thousands not anymore it's we would not we would not allow any support nations or any other reasons or for any other purposes and that's expressly signed in the were operating expenses for the year two thousand and even admitted that that was in violation of the budget that they propose that's all in deposition testimony that before the district court but sure we knew that they were going to need funds to continue to operate the problem was it is just this year in two thousand in the end of the year now it's just like the years before where they started getting further and further behind the two require them to file the bankruptcy in the first place they're starting to use capital necessary to make the payments and to operate the next year to pay last year's expenses and the more that happens the further and further they