or the panel rejected the ns argument because the words equivalent or at least as favorable do not limit the rates that b n must share with hot the two words mandate only that the terms that a company those rates must be the same or better than the terms that they played the race when they were given to other t l emcees or truck with motor carriers companies like g m to put it more simply what section three a in the final word say i give any rate it gives to another trucking company any rate full stop the equivalent or at least a single language means only that would be and use the trait to hunt it has to be company to buy terms there are equivalent or at least as favorable to the same strings that were attached that rate given to the trucking company now here is how the district court completely changed the meaning of section thirty eight and the final award by reordering the language of section three to the two has been added to or at least as favorable as the rates quoted for comparable circs the district court's insertion of these new words in the reordering if only equivalent to change the meaning entirely from what section three says and with the final war it sets neither section three or the final war and there isn't any comparison between the rates in s f offers to other carriers and the revenue divisions that hunt would otherwise pay the comparison that is called for in section three a equivalency is only between the terms that accompany the rates were offered to others and the terms that a copy in rates were offered to hunt unlike ask you this i start at the end of it though don't these rates just have to concern comparable service and to put it in my terms if you're doing coach you only need to know about the coach writes i don't care what the st class or pay out of the airplane i care about what the coast people are buying why is that a relevant ology well your honor what that what section three says is that hunt can only use them for comparable service they can only be used for comparable service and one is never argue otherwise when they quote us the coach rate we only can use that for  coach service but hot essentially uses every service that b s offers it's by far i believe its biggest trucking company that uses the arm of the service so the idea that there is this big universe of types of service comparable services the final work would say that hunt is not using and therefore wouldn't seat that's just not that's not what the screens and it's about this idea that b n has a black box approach towards deciding looking at a dozen factors and we don't know what else that these rates are really better for haunts in our estimation and its counterpart is estimation now unlike the district court the panel agreed with hans reading section three a and i direct the pay those rates instead of the revenue divisions here at the panel gave the plain meaning to the words equivalent or at least as favorable recognizing they are the basis upon which the rates must be shared not a screen either section three becomes crystal clear when it's put into context now in the arbitration b n pressed repeatedly for right to screen rates just as it claims it can do now and you can find this argument very clearly he just four hundred and twelve important person of the appendix any efforts b n wanted to undertake to analyze the rates internally and screen them out now the panel sided with hunt and rejected the ns argument that the a look at the a lot of the screen and this can be found explicitly honor expressly predicated upon one providing any such information or on whether such rates are lower than the revenue division the n s f receives so quite directly the panel rejected both legs of the f screening argument that it was entitled to this detailed information that being said is absolutely necessary to conduct a screening analysis and you can find b n c statements repeatedly that it needed more information to actually screen the rates properly and appendix six and ninety seven and appendix eight hundred and ninety two and ninety three and then i said no your obligation doesn't depend on getting that information and moreover your obligation to share rates isn't contingent on whether you think those rates are better for hot would maybe make sense because they would just be comparing the monetary charges but i'm gathering that there are other factors or conditions that go with these though along with the various rights that have to be taken into consideration by the carrier is that correct and then secondly if that's correct can you give us some examples of what these other factors  considerations kind of as a practical in practical application give us like a real world example of what these additional considerations are factors would be absolutely your hon question you're you're exactly right and that's why the n f l setting needed all this detailed information over and over to screen the rates and that's why there's twelve factors set out in the final work that the parties are supposed to together apply not not the n s f but the partons and let me give you an example of why the rates which rate is better often depends on on so many factors the rate that b n pays under these repetitions is a straight percentage of the charge is very simple so all in rates were the rates quoted other carriers are traditionally all a cart is how i call it i'm sure there's a better word in the industry but there is different charges and fees for every little service along the way so whether that rate is better for haunt on any particular load depends on who hunts customers and what they need do they need the cargo to sit at the fs facility longer because that might raise the rates quoted do they need extra personnel to go along with that load for loading or unloading loading own is one of the factors you might see you will see in the final award of page ten is this idea of free m p s some rates come with freebies within will when you order this rate will move an empty container back somewhere else for you for next time you need it and the value of that would depend of course on what one might be paying movies otherwise and its need for m p s how many doesn't need and so i think those are is a couple of factors that show how fast inten doesn't impose duties to monitor and force or report the status of ongoing rate structures offers made by either party to its customers well what i think that response was in which i was in response to dns argument that hans had report everything it was doing but the panel was very clear even in the interim or your honor that section three i'm sorry  what i'm quoting says by either party you are and i don't don't think that there's the be again the detailed bidding information required and this was in response to the organs being made to the panel but it is quite vacate modify or correct it so confirmation of your ward was indisputably correct but when further hunt sought relief from the district court that it did not secure from the arbitration panel hunt moved to enforce the final award and i submit what it really was was a motion to modify the final award or add interpretations that were not contained in the final award because of course once the final order is confirmed if it's in there they have the judgment if it's not in there they're asking the district court to do something in addition which the case law doesn't permit and we submit the district court correctly rejected hunt appeal i would submit that hunt is the dog that caught the car had a final arbitration in order to ask the district court to interpret it and we submit all the district court needed to do was confirm it and parties have whatever the just the arbitration panel award but having asked the district court to review the award hunt doesn't like the just records ruling and thus this appeal but critically for the district court found that the final award was clear and hunt doesn't dispute that it's on  and rejected hunts and forced marriage last i submit once you have confirmation of the clear unambiguous final award there is nothing further for a federal court to do so the judgment should be affirmed for several reasons st there's an when didn't address and that is the legal issue that you cannot enforce an arbitration award before confirmation and that's what the district court agreed with us so until it's confirmed there isn't even really grounds or there isn't grounds for they wast their breach of contract claim on the on the phone and the panel rightfully what i've been in these parties have been fighting over this for a while so the panel gave really declaratory of relief saying these are what the factors comparable service means going forward that you should use there's nothing to enforce once you confirm the final award what hunch is trying to really inch into is they're saying not really enforce because this goes to your question of can you do it before or after what they're saying is there's additional relief a district court could give which is true and there are circumstances but that's in the cases where you have an arbitration award and you have to do some math for the damages calculation or there's some ministerial act that's not what was happening as i'm going to show you it because i come back to if the relief that hunt want that is they wanted to enforce the final award they have that it's a judgment of the court if they wanted something in addition which i submit they did they wanted interpretations they didn't get the district court rightly as a federal court is not able to do that he confirmed the or it's now a judgment either party can go forth to enforce let me turn to what is  arbitration panel doesn't put the final damages and that's that r j a reinsurance case they cited so in that i agree a court to do the math and then kind of enter that but at least there's a procedural matter if you're truly trying to enforce it if they want to go in today in the interest on the cases of this court and other courts they say you st need it confirmed award and then the day after you know right there after the sequence doesn't really bother me the sequence would then be are you in forcing it but my point your court and the parties can proceed it's a judgment just as if we have any other trial judgment you can then come in and force it but let's remember what happened here hunt wanted over one hundred and forty one million dollars for breach of this m f and they lost that ok they lost it it was the naacp and the panel said well you guys have been in each other's throats we're going to give you some declaratory relief we're going to say but comparable service means and that's what they did that nobody won or lost that they simply told the parties as you go forward f to disclose all rates that it provides and remember these are rates of provides the hans competitors ok the panel never will that instead they sent out a process that's in the final interim award it's at the appendix  then when you give that rate you give all the details of those comparable factors and that's in fact what being a set did there's there's one in the record if you want to look it's at the appendix at one thousand and twenty which is one of these rates and it says what the rate and it lists all those comparable factor information for one to review to have discussions with unicef but the most critical point is nowhere in this final award did hunt get a ruling from the panel that it had to disclose all rates didn't happen in fact the evidence was that hunt never even requested unicef to disclose all rates until this arbitration twenty five years after the genocide began and in the two thousand and five arbitration which again between the same parties hunt different position they said well we don't want all rates we just want rates that are lower than your average rates so again this was kind of made up twenty five years later and the panel rejected it was so made up that one hundred asked this panel for they created what they call hypothetical reform that can't be found in the j s a or any of the course of dealing and an issue judge you are ahead of me but in the two thousand and five arbitration and then this panel adopted this is at the  structures slash offers made by either party to its customers so there is no express finding that we had to give all rights because believe me we litigated this for years they never did and number two mr pugh once implicit argument that somehow they did would run right headlong into this finding which that was the primary question that neither party has to do it and then before i move on all right someone is it also makes no sense what they're arguing their argument this is an and that is we get to use more advantageous rates hans argument is that they want all those rates from there that we get to their competitors so one can scratch their head and wonder why they want but they want the higher rates that they would in yours that makes no sense and i here is it possible that a higher rate might be a preferable when you consider that various conditions that go with that you know if you look at the  record here judge the answer is no hunt and be an asset for a long time small p partners and the record will show contest the best of everything and rightfully so that they want this to be successful of these comparable service categories or something that mr buland referred to empty containers which is if you imagine there's a container going from san bernadino on the west coast to chicago well to get that container that someone else would have to pay for that empty you're right on the rails u railfreight that the n s f would refuse to furnish the most favorable a plausible rate but they go on to say that's not what happened here hunt sets these rates so therefore what the n s f was asking for was the packages and fair enough the panel didn't give that to us  but that's all they were talking about in that quote they were converting something where they were ejected a procedural request by us to get that information in the suddenly say we have to give all grades i come back to this section the biggest take away ask for holdings interpretation but it wasn't able to get from the panel i want to turn now to to an argument in the breeze that was arisen mr buel and they kind of take the district court to task by saying judge brooks in his summary a refers to something as a desperate and in that in his opinion what he says is he was still in the legal leaves of the provision and this is  at page eleven a judge approaches but then he says distilling the legal lease the panel simply found that j b hunches entitle to being assessed best price in order to calculate the rate attributed to be and assess portions of the jointly provided service ok that argument by hunch that that doesn't change the final word he's doing what all judges do is he's in fact distilling what is a lot of information into a pretty clear sentence but the suggestion that judge brooks was trying to change anything he was doing the opposite in fact he said i'm simply going to confirm the award that's the judgment which is what we asked to be confirmed or affirm is simply that the on arbitration  ward is confirmed and that's consistent session of the f a a and there's no further role for the federal courts so let me briefly address other argument that is on these comparable service factors  offer to another truckload motor carrier and what we do that we have to disclose all the comparable service so let me give you an example i think it's important to understand so b s s so let me just follow up on it so you get your position that the award gives be n s f the unilateral ability to determine whether it's a lower rate being provided yes and that's right and if you look but but that isn't the end of the line but the answer is yes to your question yes but let me explain so all of the other truckload motor carriers behind us test sets the rates for almost all rates we say this march starting arms are april may st may st the rate from san bernadino to chicago seven hundred dollars ok you could use it not use it here's our conditions and that's what for everyone else we get to set the rates with hunt this is been successful but they have the unbelievable right being able to price  or they get to go with knowing there's just a split of the price call it six thousand and forty dollars on on that lane so one can go to a customer let's make one up target and say we will move all containers for the year at this rate revenue division is because we don't face the customer we get it from hunt we get it the next month so what we do is this is referred to as the market based index and in the award is we look at that and in fact hunt's prices are are driving  whatever hans prices are frankly set what we are willing to give to those other truckload motor carriers for the next month and that's why there's almost never want to these rates there are some every once in a while there usually want to often kind of odd situations but that's what the panel understood they have four thousand we have seventeen days of trial the arbitration panel understood this and rejected hans argument that we have to give them all rates now they did rule that we that comparable factors  isn't a win for a honda this isn't a win for unicef it's simply said these are the factors that you need to take into account because we were having a debate about what comes into account because for example one customer might have to pay within one dollar week of service another customer have to pay ninety dollars days is free empties mr view on that as economic value and we briefed that in the panel listed those out and that's the end that's the end of that and we disclose that every time in hunt's argument asking for an additional ruling by the district court that somehow this was exclusive just i'm not sure it's a real issue to tell you the truth but it certainly was judge brooks that there's nothing in the board that those factors are exclusive or can't talk about them if i recall right the panel gaev the two parties the opportunity to work something out and then when they couldn't work it out then the panel issued this list of  factors why wouldn't it be on its face exclusive well it didn't say that i think in most cases judge it is the issue that came up was is there something called the joint management committee that has three members from hunton b f make up this committee they talk about these rape you know it should surprising what they talk about the business all the time they talk about these rates and what came up with the arbitration panel is we argued is look we should be able to add other ones in the future we may have and that's all that came up i don't disagree judge that in most cases that very well may be the entire universe that's why i think this argument is kind of make wait i'm not sure it's a real dispute but the bigger point i think judge brooks is right is a federal judge is he just said look i'm not going to add and one argues well well this is a black box then but but that's not true st of all again i come back the parties have this joint management committee they have orderly meetings that power points that are like this they're being strategic they jointly want to get more business more profits and frankly it's good for them and this is kind of a remarkable service as you'll read in the award between these two parties that came to light but all the factors are disclosed when there's section three a great and frankly both parties what it has a dispute resolution process it's called the three step st what's required is the management of both companies talk that does result that you have to raise it to the joint management committee and if that doesn't resolve it then you can have arbitration so neither party hot again on this committee is never without remedy and that's why i've come back to i don't want the panels to lose focus of what i submit is the issue which is one federal court we've had years  arbitration and very good judge small can former chief judge of the eastern district in maryland district in maryland was the chair very long awards and everyone agrees the clear the federal judge's job was to confirm it and that's what he did court ruled it could not conclude from the evidence one presented in arguments that b s of violating the plain language of the panel's directives so i want to come back to where i started why are we here well all the parties eventually i mean hunt wanted to vacate these awards let's not forget that for years and then suddenly they said what we want you to confirm it but we want to some additional relief but as a federal court that job is to confirm the award it's now a judgment that's the end of the analysis i submit and whatever rights aunt was to secure in the award they have by judgment same thing for b s f so i come back to where i started respectfully asked the court to affirm the district court who in its judgment did nothing more than what exactly he should have done and that is  final thank you thing clues in that the n s f need only disclose better rates was just was just kind of off the cuff distilling it it wasn't really a holding and he said but that's exactly what we have the right to do under the final word that's exactly what we're doing but we all but i i read from the final award at the top of my argument where the panel said hunt your obligation is close race doesn't depend on whether you think they're better for hunter not it couldn't have been more clear but that's cream was improper  john was also asked and i apologize i don't know who asked him well where does it give you the authority to screen for better rates and he said i answer that question and then he went into a long discussion about how rates are quoted by each party who never answer the question of where in the final ward or in the interval or even if there's any authority for his client to scream rates and that's because the only thing the final word says about screening rates is absolutely reject the as explicit argument that we be allowed to do that wrist ill know explanation for how that process they've implemented unilaterally and square with our directives before you get to that though i am taken by his argument because this is unique if i was so if i got accounting nightmare but that about you setting the rates and then you split it seems to me like you kind of have it in plain english you kind of have plenty of ways to be sure what the right is by testing the market all the time but what you call the customers two why did the panel take into account that boy you can in effect buy that what all the rates are you just keep setting lower and lower and lower or wherever you want to set them and by that what it is that you try different when you try this you try that can't you over time that what they are but tell me at the panel didn't consider that al you talked about you can i want to turn briefly to this question of legal authority and i'll do it very quickly because i don't think this is an issue this court's decisions and turner and carville and r j all concerned the same thing we have here the parties disagree about what the award says the of course both see it's an end to us in our favor but a district court need to resolve those disagreements when it confirms ward because the district court's order carries the force of law and it should not be entering an order t carries the force of law if the parties don't understand what it means and so this is routine a district court in presented with parties who disagree about what arbitration work means and in those circumstances the president here is very clear the district courts happened at the same time as confirmation your honor i think that happened in turner i think it's happened in harbel and i think it happened in our ga i'm sorry you three but i think that was the context of all three of those casual just curious is it in the record or does the record tell us when and how the parties discovered that they disagree as to what the award means i don't think it's in the record i  mean i could i could tell you that there would be a hot was waiting for rates and were wasn't getting any and discussed with b n and b and said you know we're going to do it this way and that's when we teed it up for the judge i want to turn to something that of scuffing how and thirty percent the routes hard over paid relative to other carriers and you know what the n s f said you know what they're moving cargo for a different company hypothetically instead of while hans moving it for walmart their competitors mean for amazon so we'll use that basis to hide those rates from hunt that's an appendix for seventy five that's what happened and then this arbitration you know what b n s f will do make a factor in whether it could screen rates whether  serving the same customer as you know s s other trucking company that had the better rate and so the idea that this is just something to be worked out in business and that there's no efforts here to hide rates is simply unsupported by the record it's also untrue that never asked for all rates on the commercial side once as has been looking for all rates sense two thousand for the business folks in the arbitrations the question presented in over five in the st time here you only issue was counsel briefing in appearance to an argument case will be submitted and decided in due course thank you