approved number one so we don't know what the plan of the justice is going to say about this yet no actually your honor i'm sorry but yes we do ok where was a plan of adjustment fall in the twenty summit of september there was an amend we don't have anything going on and then right now we have what is called the confirmation express which is everything that has to do with with the plan will be left with a plan of two for the confirmation hearing which is right now so given that you want us to issue a declaratory judgment with respect to your impairment and discharge claims the my point is that this is something that can happen here very easily because there is a possibly and it's very important the government puerto rico has opposed the plan of adjustment much to everybody surprise and we have a schedule which was imposed on  it also saying oh no no it's not when the plan of adjustments while it's when it is up to prove that the court will determine whether this is chargeable or not that's where when we say this is something that can be repeated asking that the court reversed the dismissal from the district cork the claims are right and there is an active dispute as to the discharge ability impairment of our client's claims as of today that come how the rights of our clients for payments and the obligations of the commonwealth to make the payments time and time again and that requirements in federal law requires that the commonwealth make those payments no less frequently than every four months and that has never happened appellants can see in their brief that the time is now to make the determination as to the discharge ability of our client's claims by saying that the co and i thought i was asking the prior counsel when he said no no that's not what we're seeking that is what we're seeking whether this court makes that determination or whether the district court makes that determination in the question of law so this court does have the authority to make th the declaratory relief that we're asking here that would fire that objection with the confirmation process would require our clients to be in a new set of medication that would be very costly in the necessary  our clients provide services to the most vulnerable populations health care services which is what the provisions and pro mesa actually address so our clients provide those services we are seeking to be paid in full as the law requires because our clients provide the services and their actions are directly directed by the federal agency and we are required to use those funds to provide service health care services to under served communities so just because they argue  proposed plan at the time that her decision was made we felt that our claims were right at that time but at least at this time there was no question judge claim and pallies has said that once a proposed plan is we don't think that the court should take lightly the lightly the fact that we have additional litigation costs are all money spent on litigation is funds that are not spent and providing the health care services that our clients provide to the vulnerable populations in puerto rico this charge ability that the court can look at that right now and make a determination that our highest claims on our knowledge chargeable in addition section seven  any any provision and be used to relieve the commonwealth of its obligations as it has me before the federal agency and c m s bike by accepting medicaid  confirmation at the time of confirmation is when all decisions regarding the treatment of claims will be decided including whether claims will be discharged the commonwealth or the board may at any firstly impact any of the parties may be proposed and filed without even needing to seek additional votes among all of the parties affected if no one is a firstly if no  individual claimants treatment is adversely changed therefore this proposed plan that was filed last week same as the plan that was filed back in september are merely proposals and the commonwealth is in the process of negotiating with many parties including appellants to hopefully achieve a more consensual plan of adjustment at some point between now and the scheduled confirmation hearing so st of all i wanted to address the impairment claim as i said the impairment claim isn't right at this time because it is unclear whether or not appellant will in fact have any type of impaired will have any impairments on their claims from the commonwealth court they may be paid in full based on a plan that needs to be filed  moreover even if this court does find that the question of impairment is right we would submit as we explained in our in our initial brief that the impairment claim must be dismissed on the merits based on the application of the  in congress for the court's decision that they may be impaired by certain provisions of permits have but not by others i would not necessarily make sense but more importantly they will only be ripe one there is a final determination by the title three at that point the relief they seek will be very different from what would be seeking out the current or a judgment they will be seeking for the declaratory relief that they're seeking this is that the logic of your position that you yes yes your honor what we are saying is that no sooner than at a time of confirmation and when the confirmation hearing well the commonwealth's position as to their claims i am regardless of both the right impairment of their claims intentional impairment of their claims and the discharge ability not no sooner than the beginning of the bankruptcy court deals with  the district court did speak in terms of proposal of the plane of adjustment that was simply based on when the district court's opinion came down however the rationale for the district  court's decision and ultimate finding was not simply a proposal of a plan it was whether or not the commonwealth will in fact seek to discharge these claims and as i explained previously that does not exactly your honor at this point things are too in flux for any decision to be made i had such that anything would be on right and that goes to the now goes to  the st prong of rightness to him that if it is problem as to the hardship we are incredibly sympathetic the board of the commonwealth in general is incredibly sympathetic to the position of appellants and to the other our federally qualified health care centers that and we understand the vital importance that they play on the island however we and frankly that is part of the reason why we are engaged in these negotiations with them and with many other parties however it would be unfair to all of the parties beyond just the health care centers who are affected by the financial condition of the island and that are wrapped by the terms of premises they argument cannot be impaired and the debts of the commonwealth to them cannot be discharged so they're not they're not saying look we're not trying to compete with other creditors they're saying we should have to compete at all because of the statutory protections that we have and that ah i don't agree that that is their position however i would say that that position is incorrect because the three provisions of probably saw on which they relied did not in fact say what  would impair their rights it's pretty hard to believe that out of this process from three point nine percent reimbursement to total reimbursement that doesn't seem like it's going to happen  last year so it is not just it is not just possible there is there there are examples of classes of claimants getting paid their claims and fall however this court that the although it was not argued below although district court did not have the opportunity to since the san juan decision came out after the district court offered its opinion because under u vs georgia which is a decision from this court in two thousand and thirteen v this court may affirm a decision based on any reason that is made manifest even if not argued and present on the record below and these three provisions approach are certainly made manifest in this case as they are the basis for at least the the atlantic medical set of appellants entire complaint however based on the interpretation of those three preceeding those three provisions excuse me from the san juan case none of them actually seek and none of them actually have an effect of excluding appellant's claims from a probate even so the san juan case did only deal with the automatic stay because that was all that was before at that time those same interpretations from this court's decision would also exclude them from the automatic or from well served to not exclude them excuse me for our application of primates and the debt restructuring in general and i can go through the reasons why first of all as to chapter as the court found in the san juan case the inclusion of that phrase means that if there are provisions to permit said that expressly would serve to impair compliance with federal but does the same thing with the remainder of the debt restructuring process that is laid out in title three opponents also base their argument on section two hundred and four d e and section two for d held that this section does not id does not include the automatic stay because it requires the board taking action and the automatic stay does not require them taking action at all but beyond the automatic compliant or not with the fiscal plan that is completely irrelevant to this case and so we would submit that section two hundred and forty dollars has no bearing on whether or not appellant's claims may be subjected to the goes to the question of whether or not it is right at this time for a court when we don't know whether that discharge will happen or will be sought to happen to interpret that provision but more importantly and there have been numerous opinions in this circuit and others that hold that federal police and rights regulatory laws should not be used should not be viewed in terms of recover lost fines from parties such as of houghton's so for all of those reasons we would argue that should this court disagree with the district court's decision and find that t earlier that the impairment claim is not even right at this point because there is no definitive position from the commonwealth as to how that point of adjustment will act confirmation treat would want to make clear when we talk about this charge in bankruptcy proceedings what it means is that there is a change in how you're going to be paid and maybe you don't get zero or like here we got t or vice versa that a plan has been proposed in our claims are now right in addition at this time we have not had any negotiations with the board regarding the our claims whatsoever we asked this court claims should not be the sharks and we not be impaired in the promise of process and uphold the decisions of this court regarding our client's payment rates or you just tell us who just spoke so we're know w not any position to do that you clearly disagree with that we leave that to the courts discretion and in terms of whether the court believes that it can make that determination or wants to