having said that the both issues in this case to involve primarily an issue by the law the questions of the nature of bank account they promise to pay it back on demand within crest that's what a bank account is but i don't see why that matters the lot well it matters because the question is whether or not under the five forty eight explained it was a transfer of the interest of the commenting on that in that it's sometimes loosely used but but what it meant was that the kids just no longer the depositors with the deposit are now has an exchange for the cash is a pro does it when they find it the deposit or is distressed the nose the bank money is they say instead of paying our deposit or back we are going to pay our depositors what we owe the deposit or to ourselves and release the deposit or pro conto from the depositors obligation to us because their mutual obligation section has such actions and one of four is exclusion section and affection one of four ten the exclusion included transfer of an interest in a deposit area account in seventy nine the created by an article nine security interest both under the concept proceeds and under the concept of an outright security interest in the disbarred depository count why would we go any further then the federal from this kind of challenge and i think there's an there's an important policy there that really needs to be addressed if you look at the body of law inside on banking of these practices through the uniform commercial code in the way the liabilities are created trouble understanding you as i understand this area of law on bankruptcy law and and the ninety days it really doesn't matter whether the preferred creditor did anything bad or wrong or contrary to law or in any way improper as the creditor can be a legitimate creditor entirely properly receives payment of the debt but the custody can still suck it back into the estate  i'll i owe two debts one to a creditor that i dislike who's been giving me nothing but trouble and the other one to my brother's mother in law so i pay my mother in law the trust the king and i hand the cash over to her it's final there's nothing wrong with that rights intended by both of us to be final as she takes the money she puts it in her bank account which means it's gone  interest government couldn't take it without thing just compensation well and i think nobody else can can interfere with it without being subjected to liability that comes to the five thirty three bit plane again your honor because you have to be interval property there that crushed the is trying to take a security interest of the out of the bank that's our property and they're trying to take it from us without paying just compensation but u trust his concerns with his case focus and in a few different areas that seem to be contradictory first what we have is that when the trust initially appro personal guarantee of the shareholders well known here until they are now i'm standing behind that argument anymore from what i understand they are going in part that they are a that they were foreclosing on the security interest well none of that was stated in the trial when there are officers who are directly asked what they were doing when they that was a supplemental excerpts of record that i submitted and those are pages eighty nine to ninety one where the court is the asking additional questions  in addition and that also ties in the mutual of money there was nothing stated on the record on their own part that they were ever trying to foreclose the security interest and so since they were not foreclosing the security interest and i don't see any article nine they said he was up to date on his payments but they thought it was going to fail because the mexican loan wasn't being paid to him or mexico account wasn't being paid to him so couldn't people very well how to the may twenty fourth transaction that's the second transaction that was the money that the trustees those belong to the corporation that's that's correct in fact what the trustee did in this case and it was also supported by the findings made by the bankruptcy court trial is that the trustee did a direct tracing of every single item deposited involves account there was a default they stuff the unstable financial situation of the company of that it also links you with a couple of other issues that were meant mentioned by council in this matter the bankruptcy court found not only did they decide that they weren't going to leave the banks switched position on how what was taking place at the bank also found th the court the bankruptcy court also found that the bank had personal knowledge that this account was being used as the corporate bank account and that creates a whole different situation i mean all the protections in normal run banks in situations where they don't know what's going on and taking money out of an account that all changes and of course that impacts our case not so much the state but it also comes into play under five fifty where we're also live to collect against any subsequent transfers of that there because they knew the nature of what was going on and what procedures were held on that account and it and that also applies to all those gatekeeper safeguards that we heard from opposing counsel very well if you look under state law that that allows those banks have certain protections not a requirement of the gatekeepers most of those have an exception as they must the bank has personal knowledge that there's a different type of situation here and this especially tate's control and authority in a situation is this where we have actually the banks themselves that are taking money to apply to words of corporate and when they know whose money that is that's in the can because of their statements of trial and also allows bankruptcy trustee to limit creditors who have a secured interest in accounts receivable to what they would have received ninety days out now that fives forty seven case law that allows you to hold a creditor to their accounts receivable that they could receive ninety days out from the filing a bankruptcy also seems to coincide with the eleven u s c five fifty three that also make some pretty well say that well you can't get in a better position than you were ninety days prior to filing bankruptcy because the whole goal is not to try to have banks throw a bunch of people in the bankruptcy  faster work out well that's exactly the problem that happened in this case he was current and they took the money to push him out in the bankruptcy days later and  a distinction without a difference the difference is what right you handle at that point in time and i don't know about well that's a different case but the other thing i need i think we need to exercise is that the reason this thing is on a know exist in every department if someone comes in and deposits tax the bank has no way of knowing if it's going to patient third party claim sometime in the future as an ownership interest and you can't even  comes in for a deposit you have no idea if that check represents a transfer under the theory of judge advice mine of a third party interest out of another account that can be trashed whenever you a