didn't raise that issue with the cord into when were you objected to their green to of the directive fin stop at twenty percent interest if the twenty percent interest has been granted given out or in effect sure did up to the present time well the twenty percent interest exists they have a twenty percent i don't know that case just frankly would be manifest weight but i do think it's against manifest weight because they have a twenty percent interest and we know it exists whether it's worth something is fair to you you pick twenty percent because that's their interest best correct that's correct that's a benefit that's the reason they're doing these projects can be very profitable and worth a lot of money and then otherwise to do sure is have an interest in structuring the transaction would there be an incentive if the property gone the other way would there be an incentive to the defendants here to simply walk away from sure and if they did they walk away from the project at that time and there were no profits that they could that i think it's relevant and it could be or it could be relevant you're looking at this as a the average i mean if you're talking about something that would be require a duty to mitigate but that's not what you share in law requires convicted not infect through the essential elements of a corporate opportunity but case in illinois judge the trial court held after one year of the trial thirteen trial days that in fact there was inform your employer of the fact that you are going to do here with my clients that and that is to take a job with a new entity m h b that there's no difference and that's not the case you still need to show that must be a week we consider a concrete opportunity something tangible that can affect me take a nd when there was an opportunity when we we disagree with what what is it that your your clients of mutually benefit you truly beneficial agreement was not a contract that could be entered by separate yes however to get a get back to burden of proof that would have been something that in that would have had a shot as a trial whether it would be in the business of being the court and court employee and that was never done i don't know the answer to your question my point is if that's the case i don't know why they're asking for a one million and a quarter dollars or ask me for twenty percent of the profits because according to you they don't exist  it would be in the business of stepping into the shoes of managing a development company for another development company and i think that that's what's really the amorphous nature of this opportunity is something that spills off the page to us because we never truly understood opportunity and i don't know whether it's more for certain but it is in writing isn't it and it was executed by the purdy's to the agreement was it not so at least there's hopefully a document document that there was not a link or a nexus between the breaches that she found and what ended up being the benefits that my clients received after they left i think that's an important fact in this case similarly  know that when it comes to the remedies that the plaintiffs each one is a constructive trust and i want to make sure that i point out to the court that we believe also again i don't want to be the dead horse but the judge having the benefit of a very long trial hearing all the be put into a trust but in this case there's a chance to be no profits and the cases in illinois are very clear that when you're in that imposing a construct of trust that in fact there are profits the experts are testifying almost an accounting basis  have you seen instances of a constructive process that was imposed in instances other than the extra creation and only one case that cited by the plaintiff and that's the snap case and u s supreme court case which is distinguishable here and in the limited time i have i can tell you the distinguishing factor in that case we had a former at least cia agent who had written a book and in so doing was revealing government secrets and as a result of that he shut that looked out to him and profits were discouraged and the court said we have to issue a construct of trust because we understand he may be reading a nd book and if we do don't give them a constructive trust we're going to back to the trial court in order to determine exactly what profits are attributable to the wrongdoing of the defendant are you asking for remember we're not asking for me man i'm simply pointing in terms of the distinguishing concept of the policy argument that's being made here of course it that refers to a small amount of salary and of course we respectfully disagree with that we thought that this was a quite a large hit by the trial court and we also felt that it may have been as a matter of fact more limited in those cases the officers trailing obligations relate to the war in doing that they did when they were at their prior employer and that wasn't the case or to get a hunting back to the fact that the trial court heard years  why did they not disclose the opportunity this far as i recall from the record one of my clients indicated it was a very emotional time for him but the way that we stand i do understand and one of the things that we are was it here is the fact that such an enormous advantage of course you would accept it and you certainly when the rollout of your management team development management team to walk out such an important development and know and and those are clear it is a proposed activity it's vick but that's what the cases say a proposed activity and the reason it has to be there is because the supreme court held and the once the employee goes out is how you don't know how this deal is going to end but once he starts working for himself when he's got a duty to act solely on behalf of the interests of his corporation he is in breach of