under the sherman act to fix a minimum price for a service or a good hitter arises from these facts first over the question of what it takes  financial institutions to charge a minimum merchant discount set by the  now i say that's more than a suggestion that agreement was made that is an allegation or as we say in the federal court and that there was an agreement if you'll notice that after that the court cites the paragraph so my first amended complaint which support that statement that's judge white the district corporal that said this now that wasn't all he said on the question of agreement at page three twenty two at the top of the record in his order this was the bank order even makes the same statement incidentally in the master card or member banks also individually contract with readers on behalf of these and or master card to purchase payment card transactions my point is how could the banks contract on behalf of these sora master card without up an agreement so that's another t personally i'd rather not get into that i think i don't i understand your honor does but i don't think it affects my case because i think every point of just like the corporal has relied on conley for ever let me finish the question you may find it helps you you help me understand the case ok right bill and he came down after judge white you know his orders on the motions for summary judgment correct yes what's your position amend know my position is that satisfy you right now even though you didn't know of the higher standard of your position is the complaint set meets that standard yeah ok you've answered my question ok fine now let me point out courtney's here i guess right two places three places it's said once there is an agreement among all financial done is to reside that several places there is an allegation of agreement all occasion of consent but we're do you tell us how who  identifying a written agreement or even the basis for inferring a tacit agreement well your honor i would say if i think they're doing to the customer of the retailers if they participated in the retail conspiracy even though it didn't deal directly this is a nice circuit case and it and these are prices which are actually set by the person in the part of the host later and applied by the bank so there's no question they're part of the conspiracy agreement that i'm a issue here is not whether there is any underlying violation of the any trust laws applied in this complaint or not judge white did not purport to address that issue with respect to the bank pleading standard i believe your honor that bell atlantic sets a higher plea pleading standard than some courts have previously applied however i believe it is basically the standards that judge white apply below if you if you review opinions and review his just his or his questions during argument i think it's pretty clear that the standard he was applying in reviewing this complaint was pretty much the standard that the supreme court ended up adopting in the  facts that would be sufficient to establish the individual participation of each of these defendants in a concrete conspiracy well you know it's one thing for a district court to tell the party they're quite another thing when there's a fresh drawing decision from the high court saying you must do this without in effect notice pleading doesn't exist in the trust cases with a longer well you if that later turns out to be absolutely consistent with what the supreme court said in the supreme court after these decisions are made saying here's the standard and it's much higher well there's certainly for many purposes there obviously is a differen that issue was not identified by the plaintiffs is an issue for appeal here judge white gave them many opera and many opportunities to identify facts that they thought they could play to gave them an opportunity to him and then even at the deal i know i know mr arkwright been practicing law for many many years and it wouldn't be unusual for a man with mr archer's ukraine to the well you know i know this young judge here thinks he's right but was that he was applying and he gave them an opportunity to amend the complaint if they had facts that they could allege they had the opportunity to present them there was certainly no reason why they should hide the ball on any facts th they had if they had the facts they could have replaced them with a when they filed the amended complaint they didn't do so because they didn't have anything that they could allege and even today you know mr archer has not identified additional facts he says well i'm sure i which was similar on behalf of other planets it was amended a couple of times we've now had too many complaints in the present action it just seems that at some point if there were facts there they could have been pla combined to fix the price and therefore they were a direct purchaser from a member of the conspiracy here mr archer has not alleged that type of conspiracy here he continues to focus on one level up doesn't please shamrocks complaint here discount he did not standing alone constitute unlawful conduct on the part of the bank defendants their cease and all you did with who set the minimum and that's what he's saying again that's all i allege in this my first amended complaint so going to these procedural aspects i i agree with him that i did not allege that they set the to