entity microscale was not rendered insolvent by the transfer the assets because they get the assets back looking to the california commercial code that does just fine and solvency and that in definition includes not being able to pay and that there was a transfer that occurred you have to show some sort of deportation and i don't know that does not include a bad intent that just shows that funds were misappropriated or sent someplace else after the only found against me on that issue because they said the corporation wasn't rendered insolvent by the transfer of the assets and i think that that was wrong in or of law yes i'm saying isn't looking at the california commercial code and the evidence r t but they did not follow through on my christie they shut it down they testified to that and the agreement that they entered into or microscope entered into would be i think so the liabilities of my christie were being assumed and in fact and i cited in the to pay i e that all the corporate assets were transferred to p i including the bank accounts as that is that right i mean everything everything with p r and so at that point the corporation has nothing right i believe s there's the corporation have the right to buy back the assets of the condition was not met and that's why the corporation is not insolvent right huwaida the bankruptcy court held the micro my argument on that was the bassat ok they trash the assets they can get the assets back therefore that's they're not insolvent but the problem was two fold in my view run the assets get transferred and then the bills get consideration so they paid off that there was testimony that they paid off to loans that they were personally obligated i believe was wells fargo and some other entity but i think that's a little sleight of hand if we're getting into the money the issue isn't how much the value of the we have is the bells taking the money that should have gone to the corporation and using it to pay their own debts yesterday falco nation yes mr appropriation of corporate assets and there's no intent required then i only have a few more seconds but i believe also there was an error on the five twenty three a six claim there was evidence presented they mr bell testified in the district court action aid that microscope was continuing to operate this was back in ninety seven after they'd shut mycoskie down at enough to constitute intent i believe so given the other facts three they testified falsely about that they testified that microscopic gotten the consideration which turned out to be not true they've made it to these facts and then if you look at this point of the letters the letters go back they first have this october first agreement where they're going to get the consideration for the transfer the corporate assets a few days later a then right back deal go through take right back u s experts say sorry we're not going forward with any of this then they shut the business down then us expert goes after him for an account receivable they could recover they leave the district court into believing that it's actually still operating so that they're not able to have to get that i think of countless people fast and then we could end up getting a default judgment i think that sequence the facts clearly demonstrated that they knew didn't get the advice but i mean that's the reality of it for all of the assets went to or what was left with michael skiis who say if the track if the recession it has no value and they and we were looking to and hance our business we went with i who happened to have a patent on a new process on the connector for the snowboard industry and they had something like two and a half three million dollars in sales of that product it looks like a very safe thing for us to merge the two together we would then be able to enhance our r mycoskie unfortunately they they had a manufacturing bankruptcy i might point out that u s export did not pursue this matter for well over a year and that they have been notified of this decision to transfer the assets and  to to work with pi they had every opportunity to pursue fly through or for satisfaction of the judgment they chose not to do that who were the here's the way it looks to me and tell me what fill in for me what i'm missing looks to me like you've sold off all the assets of microscale limited these are no good i flew to japan and i met with mr sound i asked him to see those that he was following the fact that if he told me they were in a warehouse somewhere in japan and would not let me go see them so well be that as it made they had every opportunity to have more than a year the reason they don't have the as it is given as it went to you that's that's the only thing that we got was some stock that was worth very little at the time all of the money all of the bank they got the assets what about the life of this functions while they would stay in their agreement that they were not assuming they did in fact direct me to continue paying the bills from michael steele them of which we did happened was we had a we had a conflict about the quality of the product the japanese people it comes i will times and i guess and went to japan to discuss this and we finally said to them and didn't have any problem and i believe what happened there was a there was a problem in japan between two or three of the viruses and they got into a hassle and that's that's the reason that we simply said look we're not going to manufacture anymore because every time we send you something you use the thing was they're not they're not up to our standards and therefore you have to give us a better price and at that point we just said no we'll continue manufacturing until your your orders but not until we meet with the ultimate buyer to find out what the real problem ok thank you particularly since they've acknowledged that there was no assumption of liabilities that's you know that we're paying off debts the only evidence for the court and the only evidence cited in the record is they paid off to debts that they were personally obligated on they may also have been personally liable but they were part of the corporate but there were no there was no other evidence that any other debts were paid off and they'd agreed to repay ninety six for approximately ninety thousand dollars to us in that letter that they'd sent just before the evidence i believe that was before the court was that they got shares they liquidated those they used the money to pay off at least in part these debts that they were personally obligated on but again my point is that's meaningless the fact is they had eight hundred thousand dollars in assets they set the fair market value the assets the corporation was eight hundred thousand that got transferred the fact that people you might have dropped in value a year later it's not my client's problem or fault or something th