investments l l c the rule i mean what what is the minimal amount of activity that one should require to be able to make a showing to a judge there is cost and then another one that's the one with us this is the issue is i think you're because he couldn't do this or couldn't do that or because the circumstances exist that pursuant to the motion or generally i'm looking at the record in the bankruptcy this constitutes a basis for me to extend the time just simply it another step forward i mean there you're right the motion was pretty thin there was a reply brief that was a little more fulsome but they're ok well but to make it clear the judge although we didn't articulate a ground if it's if it's there in the record we could still affirm but you're saying there's nothing in the record right  outlined here but i want to just something that your owners raised during my predecessors argument which is what will what's the minimum level of activity and i think the standard should be some reasonable degree of diligence and that record cause of reference not only three submitted by the parties but also during oral argument so what findings did he make that were supported by this standard so that we could that i'm sorry under continuous itself is not grounds for an extension necessarily however what i would point out is that there is no inference that the trustee is continuing  circumstances that we're familiar with because he doesn't say in the motion that the reason these were continue was because there was insufficient information with regard to my client so that i could pursue the information that i needed so that i could be prepared you just articulate there was to continue here all right and the most i'm sorry in the argument presented to the court prior counsel said that he was integrating information and before anyone testimony from both cases and evaluating the objection to discharge claims let me ask you let me ask a stupid question about the record do we have a transcript of the three hundred and forty one hearing we do not have a transcript and we can't judge if something happened  nothing to help us with that right we do have things in the appellate filing that solved that explained that my client was asking about the circumstances surrounding the claim and continue to ask additional questions he argued that he was assessing the circumstances surrounding the claim could be put into motion that he couldn't determine the intent of the debtors because he hadn't had the opportunity to question them some piercingly of the three hundred and forty one maybe it did not put an explicit statement to that effect you know you can put anything in the motion that established why he was unable to back up the complaint he simply recounted the things that were on the record there are you exist  we're not hearing a good answer to that question not just what did you do but what did you think but i don't why couldn't you complete this explain to the quarter why because exist in a way that is understandable that there wasn't any evidence to support your claim because you didn't do anything else to follow up on whatever information you'd already large you did nothing except by the motion asked for more time again i mean it was not reasonable to conclude he didn't know where to go and didn't know what to do or didn't care or is a crime because they didn't do anything after the end of the meetings and question that so i mean i'm just i'm struggling here i don't say what you want to to infer the problem in which case i would say well it's articulate why other than it's just a problem or say i tried to do this in the meantime to show i'm doing something that we give a judge a basis and say there is cause to continue t to there is a reference in the record keep the trustee fighting that there is a potential preference action that could be brought brought into the case and not if the money that was lent the debtor  and used for something that it shouldn't have been used for there is evidence in the record that there is complex in this case beyond just the simple  this isn't a simple run of the mill case that you have a loan to a company and the debtor is either the one that excepts the funds or if the guarantor of the obligation there is or has to be the st pacific purpose they're not used for that purpose that was fraud on the creditor because that's what the creditor was it was the whole that's all of this complaint yes it's not that complex is that it's not that much different than we've seen a one million other times in cases where there's a loan made to a business an individual surrounding their acquisition of those funds because it is critically important to bring on the charge ability completely you have a basis in fraud you can't just say i let this person money they defrauded me you have to have information about the money and counsel this occurred over a period of approximately six months before the bankruptcy was filed so we are talking about a loan that was administered over many years which you have six to go through thousands of pages of records we have literally a six month period this business once the funds were transmitted to the business or transmitted to the individual into the right that's correct yes yes and that also goes to why this should have been an easy thing for anyone needing a creditor they could have answered the question counsel so unfortunately right and it was not before the court of the time but the court did consider the timing which it apparently found significant in determining that there is cause there there was activity and was in a situation where there's no action has no legs it makes the court says we really should have done this and i mean that was the unusual part of sanderson that's a mistake of law i mean excusable back isn't even a concept there so i'm not disagreeing with you but i just think it's a it's a  very odd case to use in the typical circumstance like this reason but he just comes up with deadline they haven't done a whole heck of a lot they'd like more time so i'm i don't take that as a disagreement it's an observation  believe me just ask so at intermediate step in this process of who we were due to go with you with regard to this matter would be for us to remanded to the bankruptcy court to make specific finding