working of this well he directed these entities to pay some of the expenses on behalf of oracle oil operated the well but as it turns out when we were in court in front of judge morgan the summary judgment was filed seeking to dismiss the claim of or oil because d or all the oil did not actually take the expenses out of their checkbook for these expenses for the reworking of the well through which is true absolutely positively true that's right however these are single member l l c's under title twelve the title twelve formulated louisiana limited liability company for the specific purpose of allowing a single member l l c top rate business with ease without the necessity of corporate resolutions to engage in or contracts the roots yes there is there's that possibility you're on you're absolutely right but i would suggest to you that that's a question of that mr brooks as the sole member of these l l c s i read that these entities to conduct this business  do that but he's got to do it within the strengths of the law he's got to put it in writing in some instances seems to me i don't see your honor respectfully i don't see a writing requirement for business to be conducted between single let's suggest perhaps that we have one l l c owned by one person and an l l c owned by another person isn't it true d that these l c s owned by different entities can come forward and confess to an agreement that they or understand that but i think that the law entitled twelve which affords l l c is to operate this way it to conduct business in this manner as your authority i think it's time to twelve your own i think that the law in title go  law ability company and it's not an old entity it's is not very old is thirty year low i believe or maybe a little bit more longer but that into t is allowed to do business without writings between themselves who who's understand your honor and respect your opinion but my only argument is if there is an l l c owned by one person in l seen by owned by another person and they come to court and demonstrate that they have an agreement that agreement is going to be the law between the parties it that's the case it should matter and until somebody challenges that that's right you're right that's right but but if you have two entities that have an agreement it's hard pressed to find someone that's going to challenge an agreement between these two parties are brands many we don't understand your own but my position is i believe that the long contracts allows these separately right you're just i don't have the law right here for that but up with a i would hope that it would be common legal knowledge that business entities can conduct business between the telcos and themselves without writings as long as they set forth that he had these separate entities and allowed these into t's to engage in this is by and between themselves through all contracts that is a contract with him that's a contract is himself to do business it's a contract between two juridical persons two separate legal entities that enjoyed the benefit of how do you know that there was any such not to i mean i didn't i mean i think that suggest that there is no other way to compensate mr brooks and elk or boyle l l c in this matter because the well is ruined and my client mr brooks through or coelus even though longer has the lease of access to yes no no right no he has no real right to the police who is doing well now he's making all the money no one's making the money run it i think the wealth as far as i'm concerned the concern is it's stagnant and is not being worked right now would you say in that it could or should i think it can be wrong but what i would suggest to you that my client no longer has the right to so i think it's a moot point to suggest that my client she'd go back to the well and secure leases he's not going to be allowed to secure these leases he's been denied the right to secure these leases thank you very much to yes you save your full time for about a quarter much  judge morgan had a number of but a fog legal reasons to dismiss this case and she chose the one that's inescapable and that is that the requirements of article eight hundred and forty nine were not f of contracts in the wild west having or contracts in the delta years ago may be appropriate but when you come down to things significantly as in kapoor will moveables fall all require some type of writing to be exposed the court found and it's in dispute that there was no writing by any other legal jurisdiction no entity to make or all pay or reimburse the expenses as a way of background this matter was st dismissed on a matter of prescription in the state court or a lawsuit several other entities for the exact same damage as you go through judge morgan's reason she determined that this was a matter of contract between the two entities there was no written contract oracle called on the phone e p i to do some supervision of the well so right off the bat oracle did not provide any type of scope of work between our two respective companies all the lawsuits progressed we filed a summary judgment in the state proceeding claiming the two elements bankruptcy we removed this matter to the federal district court and warlords the single jurisdictional entity argumenta dance by oracle has one fatal flaw and you d it in the bridge when they file for bankruptcy other single member l l c s wholly owned by mr brooks made claims in the bankruptcy court for damages  can't have it both way you can't the evidence is replete of any cooperating evidence required by law of louisiana to support a rd party debt oracle was advised to produce it they d could not mr brooks gave a deposition and the only evidence he said which was quoted by judge jolly was i had an agreement with myself which is insufficient evidence that's why the judge morgan dismissed his case and we suggest to your honor if there's nothing in the rocker to the river thank you very much thank you mr m oil it stands to reason that these two businesses can't conduct business two against each other and have claims against each other we conversed with against each tasks to perform under contract the is here because they have incurred expenses for the reworking of this well and directed its other companies to invest to perform and as compensation to place