whether it was a lawyer's belt and says guess we don't know just what go back to nine hundred fifty six of the way back machine as they would say and try to figure out why what would be the discussion i think that they were attempting to achieve and remind everyone that we're soon being any liability for using a broad phrase but let's make sure that there's nothing in this resolution that would lead someone  conclude that we waive statutes of limitations on our plane whether it be something fall whether it be some sort of product liability claim whether it be subsides and your point your honor weeds to the question of well what did they mean and if the decision of the court turns on what did they mean because you can't really tell that then the crowd court's decision on this issue must be what would your position be if the phrase i referred to  why would they put it in the first place it wouldn't change the second answer is the same for i believe it was put in to remind everyone that we're not waiting sections of there is a desire from the parties to limit those to narrow them in some fashion each one of those words hold that you must keep limiting language and if you don't include them in language then any liabilities means any liabilities and we know that in those cases so in the resolution when they use the phrase any liabilities of superior court those cases tell us that those that langu fifty years sixty years respectively doesn't matter it's as if your superior coal were still around not around before they were dissolved they assign or rather chicago northwest and assume all of those liabilities they triggered in two thousand and nine still exist a lot of this state is the subsidence one absolute where do they do that they do this part of the transaction whether whether they do it because that's what the fuck the seller demanded whether they do it because that was the price that was bargained for for example group it certainly would have been better off for new chicago northwestern not to take those liabilities i don't know but that was part of the and in this case  restrictions none whatsoever then adding it cannot be that prior to issuing the certificate only makes it clear that we're talking about subsides but if it's not clear if it's not the company has adopted a policy that companies on a question of reducing the number of bits of city year old versions that's why they were passing the resolution the notion that union pacific office is for that they were passing this resolution as part going on that's an excellent question and the truth of the matter is we don't know there's been no discovery on the issues been allowed to get sis to sixty seven so but what we do know why not we know that it i think the question i would raises let's recognize that we argue and let's remember that we have a reason that we had of course one of the the bosses is not a lawyer says what exactly do we why is this language and here why do we wan passed that resolution as to the sole issue under consideration we believe you arrived at the right conclusion the c m w did not assume these liabilities which did not exist for fifty three years i think the reading of your opinion that's suggests you have some sweeping holding that it is legally impossible for an entity to in fact do that mistreats even i think there are probably two straight words could not page twenty two and i think that the caption of that section which refers to legal one possibility i can't say that their attempt to read that into your opinion is altogether fair but i think it's wrong i don't think that's what you said i think you said make this seem much more mysterious than is i think is actually betrayed by the way in which mr particular did finally answer your question as to why did they stick in this reference the statute mitigations he said because they didn't want to wai didn't want to wait any he said it twice but he's asking you to in fact conclude that there is an implicit intent to wait frankly the all important statute of limitations the binding bar on any claims against dissolved into these after two years after dissolution that was the statute in effect in one thousand fifty six today is five years and that statute has been given strict reading for the more than sixty years it has been on the certificate articles of dissolution prescribed by illinois law which the board signed off on and one of the elements of that requirement is that they certify that provision had been made for the liabilities they did that was they created a reserve to cover liabilities during that period and once almost liabilities were discharged the reserves extinction so there's absolutely no mystery that the board understood what the dissolution process  they understood what they had to certify to the state as to which i guess my answer would be it is true there was no one on the other side of the table representing superior coal but there was someone representing the state because there was a requirement that there be orderly dissolution provision for debts for certain period of time it was clear that once that kind when there is no obligation on anybody's part so what you're being asked to equally plausible interpretation of this resolution when i say that's nonsense i say they wrote in subject to the applicable statute of limitations because they wanted there's that mysterious term we really not think we know a does this is because frankly it's a trap for the unwary the not have a comprehensive listing of all of these statutes number four in the most recent book was the statute we're talking about here today the official draftsman of the illinois understood exactly what it was and it was invoking the full protections it was entitle to under the law that not only includes the statutes otherwise applicable towards contract but the statute applicable to claims against versus a statute patients none of those cases say that suggest that a generic reference statute of limitations necessarily excludes sprigs sample section eighty four as i've said to you both the language and the opinions of the heart itself and the authors of the rules have all seen this as a statute of limitations which is not me saying this to you the quite a few people who agree with me but i also come we find language in the trust instrument that says that the trustee is to apply his good judgment as to what's in the interest of the beneficiaries so the court said in that case where we actually see two different equally plausible alternatives we think that is legal ambiguity and we do think we're the proceedings of war but if you contrast that to what we're dealing with here today first no they have no facts at all they have the text of the resolution period nothing else and they say  think this could have been drafted simply say we're in except of my abilities superior court as defined by law and as applied by law meaning that i think that that's another way that she's saying the same thing this was not an option anything or product in the resolution and then the question becomes if they chose to mention something about the resolution why is it risky for to hear right that they had something else in mind well of course process in place and you have to document what it is you think and that's the significance we think of the many different documents that like a careful this process was followed so i don't think that resolution fact there is no other ancillary background or contextual fact offered to establish the ambiguity he just wants to debate words he wants to debate it based not on what the text says but about how other courts characterize that statute other six business which use perpetual risk as opposed to certain safety that is not trial it could be that they acknowledged and they knew that the alter ego relationship existed they had in fact requested be almost didn't work to find an alter ego relationship they knew existed and they took the assets and liabilities and further and sort of that relationship because by the resolution very were they said we're planning to crunch dollars series we're going to take the assets we're going to use any why does he also know that said statutes of limitation courts have made clear that section ninety four is a survival statute rather than a statute of limitations it must be emphasized that the court extension statute is not a statute of limitations or was a group that was written in