fund the gutters business operations the money went to the bank the money was given in exchange for the security interest and the money and stack was used by the debtor in this its operations so that's the fact for doing what i just wonder i want to try to clarify something the shareholders that they're going to have contributed to the company and exchange the bank also get some security from the company which is sort of like helping to guarantee net result is essentially one of the same the fact the the economic structure is very similar to along with the guarantee but the other way around except that i guess that if there's a loan to the grocery and it's other thing the loans made to the shareholders shareholders give the money to the company that the contribution of capital or how did they get about who had not know your how and how it happened in fact how it happened in fact is the they decided that he wouldn't make the long directly to the banks they made it to the shareholder the purpose the understood it purpose of the loan was to fund the debtors business operations later on when they give the accounts to the shareholders in exchange for a hundred twenty five thousand is that what it is the correct term for a five thousand dollars or that's paid over to the bank do they get a can get does the bank of a further lien on those accounts once they're transfer relationship and this is where you have essentially do a launch of a situation where the bank in our situation makes a loan to to a third party shareholders or whatever and then that th that the bank and in doing so the debtor dollar for dollar pays back another loan a distinct loan that it has with the with the third party there are a number of cases out there that hold that that kind of dual lo and gives rise to recently equivalent value and i know this deal with that certainly that draw loan situation does give rise to recently equivalent value however that's not the only way you can establish reasonably equivalent value and i think what you have to do is go back to the the statute that is the situation we just talked about where when the debtor paid one loan to satisfy sad but also another way of establishing value his property and my argument is that we have here today we don't have the property going directly from the bank to gets the property one hundred fifty thousand dollars then the debtor has obtained reasonably equivalent as i say there are a number of cases you're going to hear about there from my opposition here today that they deal with the to establish reasonably equivalent value on the other hand i've cited a number of cases in my brief where we don't have the two alone situation and yet the court has found reasonably equivalent to values are a whole bunch of them but there's some and i think that's that's right in with the argument i just made when you go back to the statute these are cases where the debtor receive property as opposed to satisfaction of the debt we have the evidence for table case that in my brief we have to securely case that i the point here is that there's a lot about the transaction we don't know ok that's true operations now and what the court says there goes through an analysis as you just did just says it's essentially the same thing as two ways of doing the same thing what the court also says in that case i'm happy to inform you is that the very end steve's on the distinction i'm trying to make that you have property or with satisfaction of debt and the court in that case at the very and sa it may not make a difference whether the debtor corporation actually owes a debt to the stock holder so long as the money or property that the price of the stockholders dept wasn't fact received by the corporation that can use this recognizing that there's two ways to establish reasonably call them value the tripartite do a loan reduction of debt but also all in situations where the debtor actually receives the property what is the harm to the shareholders or to these predators of the bankruptcy that's what we're looking out for here know why shouldn't the bank be able to get security for that i don't really i'm having trouble understanding the baptists position here it seems like when the company gets from the shareholders  hundred fifty thousand dollars which the bank just purchased directly to the company it's getting more than the value of the security interest as i could be totally wrong and i'll study these cases more but it looks to me like the bankruptcy judges here are trying to get something for the creditors for the general creditors at the expense of a bank that has a right struggling and they get you know either a guarantee of the shareholders or they do it this way which is just you know a different form of the same things they're going to get beaten out of it later it's just going to be really harder for companies sides i don't know why it has to be along why can't there be an agreement that will borrow money from a bank and contribute to this capital if the company puts up some security said we we will make the loan directly to you the principal now the principal didn't have to do that contribute that money the money stayed and the money that was put into the bank account of the debtor brazil with the bank pain especially on an obligation that was not its own the bank was taking its own money built by capital contribution or the generation of revenues and pain something pain an obligation a debt that they did not that he purchased the debtor's at those assets were valued at somewhere in the neighborhood of four hundred thousand dollars he now lives in montreal canada the state brought an action against him for the just to kind of wrap this up just because there's a contribution doesn't necessarily mean there's going to necessarily be eight overall benefit this was something that principles of a corporation are to do they are to keep their company funded it operational hopefully keep it solvent to engage in business that was not the case here that they took advantage of this is always the moment you know i mean shareholders don't have to keep putting in more and more money for ever they can always they reasonably equivalent value is the key to all right reasonably equivalent value in exchange for an obligation district well us in exchange for an obligation  per se this rupturing of this arrangement in this fashion makes the front transfer and we don't need to know the interior of the bank we don't need to know anything else we don't