During the hearing of the application, the questions that arose between them were which part of the social contract governed the distribution of withdrawal revenues. As part of the analysis, the parties, in conjunction with the court, treated the refund as a „hypothetical sale“ since, as the court found, „the commander did not renounce his ownership“ but his interest „as commander of the final partnership.“ In this context, the commando argued that repayment should be governed by the liquidation provisions of the social contract, since such a withdrawal, considered a hypothetical sale, would constitute a „sale or sale of all or most of the assets of [p]artnership“, whereas the complenier who has decided to withdraw interest instead of the acquisition of the property would constitute a „sale or other sale of all or of all the assets [p]artnership.“ On the other hand, the Komplesier argued that the terms of distribution should apply to a refinancing whose sponsorship capital accounts would not have been taken into account. b) The limited partnership (s) that holds the kick-off rights must be able to exercise them – or, in other words, there should be no major barriers that would exclude the exercise of the rights. Some examples of these obstacles are: fines related to the exercise of kick-off rights, Inadequate number of qualified resupquarings to replace the outgoing kompleim or outgoing partners, conditions in the partnership agreement that make it unlikely that rights can be exercised, lack of information and mechanisms to demand and implement a vote, etc.b) the veto of a new or wider collective agreement is a right of protection (provided LP does not have a agreements with a union or if the union does not constitute a substantial part of LP`s staff). In January 2017, the FASB gave the ASU number. 2017-02, non-profit entities – consolidation, to determine when an NFP, who is a general partner or a commander, should consolidate a for-profit LP or similar business.