case for argument this morning is in the matter of trinity eighty three development court as well and if there's time we believe that again is as we stayed in our brief that the motors liquidation case which has been decided by the second  type of situation almost exactly this type of situation occurred in the in rate motors bankruptcy case and the second circuit in that case a bank filed a rel statement in this case in our case it was just a regular release now the banks according that they said yes there there was an error and i know they didn't mean in that in that or should somehow alleviate the effect of the release which was perfectly clear that courts that absolutely not you signed your documents you sign the release you filed the lease you compared their lease to sign the release the releases that you're talking about in the in the member name of the j p morgan case and a second circuit yes all that happened after the bankruptcy petition was filed here you have the satisfaction and the cancellation both occurring before any bankruptcy petition your honor i don't believe that's correct i believe that that they were both discovered after the bankruptcy case and the j p morgan general motors case your unsecured creditors committee determined during their investigation that this release and then hear the same thing happened after the bankruptcy court during the i think you find during the course of the banker's case it was determined that dissatisfaction had been had been filed so the fact that in both cases neither party and the cancellation here a cancellation was filed here correct well you know where the bankruptcy right so you want to focus on the satisfaction part of that right but what about the cancellation part of it well the satisfaction of cancellations or are are the same thing that they canceled all right they waived a right to have a security interest in aspects of this that and filed a u c c three three terminations statement here it is the same exact thing they under the contract under the evidence regarding mistake which even if that's true we don't think was was the case here but again your honor going back to the general motors case your lawyer doesn't it doesn't say that strikes me as candidly so is that the reason that your client cares about this so much is that the process if you prevailed you get the proceeds back you get the proceeds back that would allow the company to restructure absolutely just ok now by its terms then archie seeking to redistribute the the proceeds of the sale correct and then how do you deal with three sixty three  k and not talking about the facts or river west but based upon the language of three sixty three  you so what it says is that reversal or modification on appeal which is exactly what what you're asking for that that's the way i read it yes does not affect the validity of the sale to an entity that purchased  three sixty three i was the perfect that good faith protect good faith purchasers of assets under three sixty three who have gone through the process going through the courts going through the notice process done everything they're supposed to do and  in error and that is an important part of that is the factual record is unrefuted and under budget the debtor trinity never filed a counter affidavit so our affidavit stands satisfaction was recorded by mistake an error they continued to make their payments to the lender and we continued to accept the payments when this mistake an error was discovered we recorded our mortgage by recording the cancellation this happened way before the bankruptcy proceedings this is an important distinction between our case and the general motors case that's an important fact in bankruptcy motors when the u c c financing statement was accidently when times when the u c c terminations statement was recorded they never ended it prior to the bankruptcy filing so we have a big financial distinction and they would have j p morgan chase would have been a different situation but we we re prophetic to prior to the bankruptcy so we were good  debtor actually filed a motion we agree to the motion and we sold to a third party purchaser three sixty three says that they were if they were unhappy with any aspect of the sale not statute says if you have a problem with i worry about i worry about imputing this and you can't say anything about the proceeds to river west we have several situations saying the opposite that you keep the three sixty three m does not prevent a bankruptcy court or district court from reallocating the proceeds all it does is protect the buyer's reliance interests and if so we've got a conflict within the circuit to clean that up or will be by relying of the statute but they were unhappy with that they should have filed a notice of appeal and they should have requested the stay and that did not happen here do you and by that language in the order that order became final under the bankruptcy rolls was in fourteen days and that the entire border needed to be appealed and stayed and by right right and they really had no right to the proceeds going into the fight when we went into the sales thank you