or six minutes at the end to handle the cross appeal issues which would be arbitration at the time so i could begin with the for not convenience motion i just remind the court that i represent the court appointed trustees and bankruptcy for the sation standard which he also modified the law a little bit on the deference issue is all i'm and in this court cases and the court has reversed on a number of sit in a number of situations where convenience that the bad is this is what he said in response to the issue do you get to presume that the choice of form is convenient to the point that if they're out of state you can simply presume that they must come forward with some convenient showing so he looked to the convenience and this is how we disposed of the trust these arguments he said pay off live here they don't have businesses here they don't intend to move here i would disagree with you on on that point i think you're you're right i i would look at it from the standpoint of the trustees convenience but certainly there are things happening in the other forum that were very very important to the district court's analysis was the bankruptcy that was in the state were ready in place in the netherlands and this case arises from that estate is indeed the trustees in the bankruptcy that are pursuing the claims in the united states there is of course the state that is in place but we the here in the united states of course with the fact the trustees follow the defendants in order to bring lawsuits and of course their respect for that is actually reflected in statute nowadays eleven u s c fifteen zero one is congress's reflection of the principle that we afford trustees there are official duty days we treat them with respect when they come here to the united states in pursuit of their duties under the  to the existence of the proceedings that he commented on because he was dead wrong about that in terms of judging and he said with suspicion the motives of the foreign trustees for being here there was a mistake there is formed of course the trustees the about in their duty to liquidate the estate and the estate assets and this is quite european to follow all the defendants we have they are located and sued them in their jurisdictions here when no other proceedings pending at the time complaint to shareholders who are not represented because these claims are only brought up for the benefit of the creditors is there any political to more formal proceedings it could have been but it was not there is it is a request to ask the public authorities more particularly in the introduction words like a pattern of fraudulent activity misrepresentations mismanagement to see etc the fraud is is included in various paragraphs in this complaint and the essential fraud i think is that misstating the value of the of quest and k p and quest for perhaps acquiring other business sent let me get to the point of course if that's true then why should i not be able to take that into account and if i do what you have that is a dutch law case but i mean that's walk ace and i would just point out that that under our issue is a actually quite a difficult one what we are confusing here is west has securities holders it is manipulating a foreign company you have quite a bit of a distance between their securities injuries and the injuries to the company itself and the distinction is repeatedly made and should be made between a company claiming a breach of fiduciary duties to itself or a fraud that is caused by a third party to itself and the damages that result to the company and then saying because someone then reports about that in their books in the quest books and records that execute this possibility of a securit well will go for the left was right before the motion was granted there was a creditors involving one known one syndicated loan at the end of the period of a separate action director surely perhaps under the dutch law claim because of the way the system works but you know all our statutes are pretty good here in the united states that they are far less believable they would never really have never for example conceded that they would make themselves amenable to dutch jurors jurisdiction i don't know that they have made those concessions in a any of the other proceedings and you will always take the risk of the fall on those brought here in new jersey in particular because all the parties had contacts with new jersey mr nacho and one of the other defend this was actually located here west actually it does that with business here and the other was mcmaster who is the other principal or with mr knight you know there was a very real issue of police documents and his documents that were going in his possession and so we came right here to the source which was mcmaster and not you know the for reasons jersey or in the united states the actual board of directors including two independent members of the board of directors the rest of the witnesses are located here too in this i call your attention to the a a united say spirit united states though you will see that they do predominate and this is the family affidavit towards new jersey including including the board members they seem to be concentrated here why that is true is a fact just happens to be the fact it was something we found out about and more aware of and that was important to pursuing the soup a suit like this because she wanted to be where the witnesses are when you have a real  after the backup c are sequestered and put in boxes as jeffrey brown did correctly assess documents don't wait in the giant balance anymore because they would need more documents of course located here than those at the qwest documents there's actually an affirmative treaty that does that not withstanding the firing of the district judge then you do move to the rest of indexation stand the trusting the judge said is i want to apply that standard because this is an out of state trying to finesse just completely contrary to the y and related officers and directors not by the way mr macmaster but who was just a k p a quest officer but but that have to do with qwest financials qwest restatement issues specific to qwest the only connection between the two did the entire dutch side so the us cases and against qwest really do not sure anything about the convenience of a keep inquest dutch bankruptcy dutch operated company there are two cases two in the united states dealing with k p inquest one is a ten million dollars case in arizona which has been severely limited by the public practice out there and involves specific allegations of specific  would really appreciate that could you do one thing could you stay while i judge brown used his discretion and just tick off what he did that was wrong that you would like this why did not wright mess up the balance here's here's the answer to the first of those three questions the answer to the first of those three questions is that it is questionable but the plaintiffs are dutch but they have neither personal nor professional contacts and that just to respond to your original question right at the beginning of the argument judge what is the reason that they are here is only because they've been they've been given permission by a dutch judge we don't know what that provision constituted other than that they could come here we don't have a written order we don't know if there was a standard is it's the same thing is the balancing of pro publica private interests the the the rule of the supreme court articulated in piper is is the the action here comes the important part out of all proportion the place to be so that's a comparison in footnote six in piper which hangs off of that quote i just gave you that listed the public and private interest factors we've come to be familiar with so the judge  first is the compare of analysis of witnesses now i don't know where to put the trustees have said over and over again and briefs and again today but the most important witnesses are in the united states i don't know where they got that from if you look at the is k p n had to walk all over its eyes so all of these people who worked at k p n all these folks who are listed in this bank case i gather you say that the substantial harm the most information throughout europe and possibly dash transmission were all owned by the pm before this venture started the employees were largely dutch yes it's true yes it's true there were there were american supervisory board members but there about supervisory board members and their whole complaint is based on the notion that the latter but dutch members of this community of k p a quest to align to by the americans the line took place therefore by factor should actually talk about the docket for just a second these two thousand plus documents that you mention there are many only hard copy documents in this case it is true that electronically the documents are a wash and it's also true that when documents in the netherlands is ignorance they won't bring them over here they won't pay for them to be said over here we have to go there to read them or we have to pay for copying so that is a factor it's not something just grab restless decision on but i want to clear that u strange the joint venture agreement said it said no to say arbitration but it said those those rights which would naturally survive the determination of agreement survive the termination of agreement even if some of these amended and superseded the terminated rights the problem with that is twofold one is it doesn't do anything to the claims that arise under one thousand nine hundred right there's the joint venture was  operation for about eight months until they were forced ninety six nine hundred ninety nine during that time but the trustees in this case we cited in our brief allege that there was a fraud going on yes they say that war occurred later but there was a fraud going on by the same characters the the the society answer your question is that these are christian rights survive the termination of the agreement at least with respect to the period in which that greenland was here is that qwest communications internationally told its agents go out and commit fraud those agents did so they were also agents of qwest b v the subsidiary and what the trustees did is they should question medications internationally an individuals the only way that the individuals were able to do things at this company to loot this company to hijack this company all that was because they were agents of quest so matter how hard the trustees try they can special suspicions about foreign defendants the rule has always been for the feds are entitled to the same level of deference is out of state defendants it's a question of opinions and what you show that we do not in the federal courts have a rule that says the federal courts have a special suspicion of foreigners we are concerned about out of staters and this court has said we are concerned about out of staters because there is no presumption go there they do point out the significance of the trees and this fact that you are being granted national access and then work your way around that past this man for something now it is not an issue did it begin in this court's cases because could have brought that anywhere they all exist and that's a legal determination that our courts have made as to other contribution and i don't exactly know what we do but he seems to confuse the notion of people being in europe with their being in the netherlands and their being someone to join up a contribution actually this is an action against them if they have contribution plans they could bring them where they sit where they can including i believe given that k p n has been a defendant here before series of mistakes in assuming they're all these cases could somehow be merged together and they are not the different parties they're her relationships they're very different kinds of cases so they haven't got the specifics that do that and that i want to bring to the attention of the corps they say we say these are important witnesses but we did that by affidavit which is the mechanism that you use to demonstrate the importance of the witnesses that is we have an affidavit that demonstrates that the board members are here and the important witnesses are here so we did by evidence which is the conventional means by which you prove these things up in court and that's what we did turn into the arbitration point if i can if i may go ahead and i think i can do this  quickly remember the arbitration point centers on the rico client because the claim that is the claim of mismanagement is a claim that is statutorily according to the trustees it is not a claim that was ever owned by the better and so that there couldn't compromise agreement point and the agreement is controlled by the fact that the subsequent agreements are superseding agreements and the exact language again pointing to the record is a j three ninety eight at the subsequent two agreements replace supersede extinguish restating and substitute for the prior agreements and those agreements were entered into a bipartisan with both parties and the rest is not a part of so there was a reason they didn't governed by a big application of public policy but by a question of and this is who was in this course dupont case did we rely on this contract do we have to rely on this contract do we need this contract the one th