thought my god i have really done the least you know what it is i've had judges ask me it does that mean we put it in jail or that sort of thing so i sat at my desk and  know well we decided we've had other cases a south korea and i don't cast any dispersions against the course of south korea but we did not feel that we would be successful in korea and the like all attorneys exactly w is in korea it's not available so what we did i mean we evaluated the case and like all cases we tried to figure out what was the best venue for our case where did we have the best chances says do we want to go to korea and we made a decision not to go to korea and we made a decision to pursue our in ram rights which we have a right to do under u s law so i can't make an analogy to dale but what happens with a letter of undertaking is basically i call up my opponent mr whalen who i've known for a long number of years and said look the vessel is coming and we intend to assert our interim rights me intend arrest the vessel unless you put up a letter of undertaking which we don't have to accept but everybody agrees that it's acceptable and then instead of the vessel actually being arrested and a bond being posted  remember parents being forced that way we go through the letter of undertaking with a guarantee the p and i club for the vessel guarantees to pay a judgment up to a certain amount and they agree to have to mak appearance so we have an interim claim where the vessel itself under the law and this circuit and throughout the united states the vessels personified it's a separate  what you get in a letter of undertaking is exactly the same thing that you get when you are rest of us all which is you get security for a judgment and you get an interim appearance and what else you need i mean what what what  circuit would allow us to prosecute the case to a conclusion and to make a recovery of damages if the court found we were entitled to do it but if you enforce the form selection clause then we're out of luck in are are not endangered well i going to a country like japan that doesn't recognize in rem with a letter of an undertaking well it i forward in our case i think my job as an as a council is to recommend to my client the action a course of action where to file and so forth that would be most effective and what we decided to do is that the most effective way to prosecute and if we start letting and section three dash eight guarantees in rem claims so are  correct and there was a uniform system of for international rules for cargo carriage the hague rules was a international convention of sixty six countries want to which was the united states and some of the signatories of that convention i think  sky reefer both that held the both the hague rules and coggs are meant to be interpreted and applied uniformly international forms of dispute resolution  hague rules again international convention has to be applied uniformly throughout the world international forum forms for dispute resolution many of these countries don't allow in room claims so it's virtually impossible for be applied in international forms of of dispute resolution and it's important to look to understand here also that in this contract of carriage in addition to the form selection clause to believe as paragraph thirty three aki sin versus regal beloit two thousand and ten supreme court case where the bill of lading in that case had a foreign form selection clause on for tokyo and then had a foreign law clause calling for japanese law but incorporated and ship is an inanimate object that cannot its conduct cannot create liability under cox or you need to the conduct of a cox a carrier in order to obtain an eventual judgment against a ship and ram being the maritime portion of the case so you always need the conduct of a cox a carrier in order to to go forward against a ship in ram and here jersey and there was still an extension that went through january fifteenth twenty sixteen another three weeks to file in korea they intentionally chose to discard and lose those claims against the  admitted in the argument earlier that they fully assess the situation in this was a conscious decision but you cannot however it's admitted in the case that in korea allows a cargo claimant to arrest vessels or attach assets and jurisdictions outside of korea such as the united states here to obtain security for it in pursuit of judgment in korea so if you look at this case this plane if it cannot be put in a better position than the plaintiffs that are in sky reefer or the second circuit case of  appendix there's a affidavit from the korean lawyer that we employed that that indicates that it's under korean war a plane the cargo plane to find a pain security in other jurisdictions by either cause of action and that's improper that's not permissible under both sky reefer and that this and the citizens the other point i would like to make is i think that the real the real issue in this case is not whether there's an enron ca time business partners with liberty woods in this case korean corporation and also star ball carriers that's the question was that what would korea provided an adequate interest on inform for them and the answer is yes it's undisputed reefer that's just not permitted and i was i would suggest your honour's that to accept this the faulty premise that an in ram action is guaranteed by  know the problem is that we have in ram right here we don't it's not a question of expense going to career or anything if it's just a question of expense we would be there in a heartbeat we've had experience there on cargo cases it's like in the united have a choice really big shippers like wal mart and people like that can enter under the shipping act and they can enter into service contracts which is where things are actually bargained but where you have a public carry aged type business is that's the way the statutory framework is is worked up there just isn't the shippers like liberty was international do not have enough business to dictate the terms of bills of lad well it's not really an end around because ship owners can always change their clauses and if it's court were to decide in our favor very shortly they would amend the clauses the form clauses to protect our interim rights if they did that then we wouldn't have any complaint at all but they they have not done that but i think perhaps of what i'd like to say in response to do you judge him bro is that in ram actions in the united states are separate standalone actions that people are entitled to proceed in the united states but not the rest of the world the rest of the world has in ram but they're considered a pre procedural you can still arrest vessels there are you know  what we're talking about well what we're talking about here is a specific statutory provision section three dash eight which says that any clause covering or agreement relieving the carrier or the ship or the ship