where i think the apple e has actually summarized very simply what's at stake here it says the district court also did not explicitly discuss cabin civil issues that were raised in the complaint and without having served them now trying to argue something from the record a to dispute what the court should or should not have done is i think is not it's an futility the question here is is the district court required to have decided the conspiracy issue and whether there whether it was anything was barred by lack of evidence on   merrill lynch understood what the plan was to violate the group to violate the f the financial arrangement agreement they understood the intention of they understood the intention was it that they did because the district court decided this on fluke looting that they did nothing at all so in your view what exactly is it that merrill lynch did they knowing that there was an agreement merrill lynch permitted they permitted ts t g ts e to get around that agreement to to not to ignore it and not have to abide true that sounds like your complaint is that merrill lynch did not they didn't stop anybody else from doing something could you explain to me what if anything you believe merrill lynch did yes merrill lynch dealt directly with the buyer or keep the my client out of the loop so he was not aware that was going on he felt they don't directly with him and then issued an application and in this business when you've issued an application if the percent potential borrower said i agree and i will abide by all the terms then they get the money so what they did in effect was allowed him to get or take out the words in d s g t s g to proceed with having alone completely excluding my client from that's what they did right and that's district court on summary judgment concluded that the evidence was insufficient once that's gone then the conspiracy claim is necessarily gone there is a fine line of distinction here which has been made by this court and at least two different cases this is not a question of whether they actively promoted the breach so therefore not actively torturously interfering nor did they schooling nor did they actively they did not actively assist in that pulling money out of the accounts which but they permitted ts g to manipulate the words of those accounts conceal that from my client so by permitting them to do it they permitted g s t to violate the tier the premier ordered and permitted ts g to manipulate those accounts by permit to do it then we go to what this court has and at least two occasions said is they knew about they knew about the plan they approved the plan they did what they could do it to approve it and in fact it hurt my client and he's been damaged by it so it's not and i must apologize saying calling it a conspiracy is right what it is is facilitating wrongful acts and so it's because i recognize an illinois law that you a conspiracy is in another itself not actually existing that merrill lynch did something or that it failed to do something that was  to do i think it it failed to do things it was obligated to do it was obligated to advise mr album that there been apprised of they had been approached by his client by work they were obligated to to work with only the broker on this they didn't do either one of those things and what they did was they allowed they allowed t s t to violate its agreement which was wrong that was a wrongful act that the is that they allowed to happen and then they liability is that knowing that there was a scheme to do wrongful acts violate the agreement the materials liability the serial i believe is in the two cases that they say ok i need a name i if that it's in as i just stated i think it was incorrectly referring to it as conspiracy or what is it if it's not it's serious what it is is the facilitation of the wrongful acts and in two cases this court has decided that if they merrill lynch support yes and doing by dealing they've supported c s g by dealing directly with a borrower excluding concealing that they were doing the borrower take that and then they in the industry it is very well recognized for three reasons that when a client is introduced to a commercial lender of this nature that they will only deal with that client through the broker one just because they want that broker can you represent a business to them too because the trenches that are necessary as i pointed out this is a ten thirty one the arrangement is ten thirty one so that p s g would in the business every other lender that approach said no you have to deal only with us and that incidentally in merrill lynch is application it said that and they change their application at ts g s request not to require to be date billing dealing with the broker that it's very secure standard in the industry all the other potential lenders said no you have to come with your broker and even in this application the original application said you must be dealing with us with a broker and then they took that out at the request of t s t if that wasn't assisting t s t to get around to i can't i don't know anything better than that so you say merrill lynch had a legal duty relationship with apple in every other deal and all the brokers work that if you have been brought if a client has been brought to the lender by a broker then the let the insistence on using that broker you can't approach them  couldn't do it then merrill lynch knew by permitting the as she to do that they were permitting t s t to violate that agreement thank you conspiracy is not an independent tort in order to state and bring in a conspiracy claim you need to have an underlying tart at the district court level mr allen arc if there were to underlying torts for these crimes one was promis that decision of course necessarily means the conspiracy claim must be dismissed as well you cannot pursue a conspiracy claim if you don't have evidence of your underlying torques the district court didn't need to they just didn't need to come out  spell that out in the opinion because the conspiracy claim necessarily and it logically fails as soon as the underlying torts will fail so there is no error here by what the district court did the district court's decision is one hundred percent consistent with how merrill lynch and mr allen framed this issue for the court at summary judgment is one hundred percent consistent with the authority from this court as well as illinois law and conspiracy claims the only basis to remand this case would be if there was evidence presented in the record to this court that the district court got it wrong somehow with promissory estoppel or tortious interference and there is no evidence in the record explicitly this appeal is being brought solely to seek remained for purposes of the conspiracy claim where i had some confusion to the reply says we're not pursuing anything else and if that's true so if we accept the reply br is necessarily granted summary judgment and the discourse roland is about about my confusion stems a little bit from the opening brief which suggested that perhaps mr allen was pursuing a broader range of remedy with this court respect that there is a lot of allegations in the papers and there are allegations during oral argument about what took place and what duties happened to observations one that's not in the evidence or a record that was presented to the scored there is no  applin claims he has and to this court reversed and the decisions that the district court made i mean you can take the simple idea of a conspiracy well leave aside the fact there's no underlying tort so if we even put that aside mr allen needed to present to court some evidence that there was conspiratorial agreement by merrill lynch and tax strategies group the third party involved there's no evidence of that there's no record citations whatsoever to the court on that so even if we put aside the way for of the arguments even if we put aside the fact that the district court got it wrong on those two underlying claims of promissory estoppel tortious interference there's no evidence of an agreement here so there's essentially with merrill lynch essentially with merrill lynch is arguing is that the decision in this case in the fidelity national title case that he cited in the jones versus city chicago case that said that i cited that those who'd be overrule has said that if there if somebody is undertaking to do something wrong in another party understands that agrees with it and facilitates it and that's been damaged then in fact they're responsible for what conspiracy accusation and your honor i think knowledge i think that i did not pull i did not properly state that what i want to do is analyze whether they have taken into account the  the assistance that was given to and for shorthand referring to it as conspiracy as matter fact these cases all show up with you if you are researching conspiracy that's why these cases show up it's rule in accordance with the two cases that i just referred to that it what it is that they become this that party becomes libel for the wrong that was done which get priscilla to it well well how right but under the cases that this this court has decided that that facilitation is a wrong which has a remedy in the they are the violation of the t s t agreement and the manipulation of the people by the individual or entity that you facilitate