survey pronto and against mcdonald's for approximately twenty four million dollars that judgment had to be notified immediately and paid we seen three days of notification however mcdonald's did not pay that judgment in two thousand and five instead mcdonald's made a serious of inappropriate filings and implemented the strategy to delayed the payment of the judgment until two thousand and nineteen is not entitled to interest on the judgment right no your honor and that is a misconception no that is not correct your honor and that is a misconception that you really want to dispel any if we look at the orders entered by the for your failure to make a timely request was that not the whole and no your honor the holding was seventy percent was entitled to post judgment interest however served pronk to modify old must filed a petition for post judgment interest in the of that date of entry your honor new york recognizes that there's a judgment that the had to be paid and this failure of mcdonald's to pay that judgment as of that day accrues post judgment interest and that's what the said and in the rd circuit meet clear your honor that under their recognition act it doesn't really matter and they dealt with the exact same issue in that particular case the judgment debtor had failed to comply with the procedural law that required them to file a number of the titians in england to seek the post judgment interest and the thirst circuit said it is irrelevant whether that procedural law whether the request was procedurally made or not at the point is that the recognition act requires recognition as of the date of the entry and that is a misconception and want to note that the district court be not cite the order  procedural matter but does not have anything to do with the right of servant prone to the post judgment interests and it's clear that the court the district court misunderstood the impact of these water and i want to say something else and it is very important to see to recognize that on december september th two thousand and twelve mcdonnell's abandon any objection to the recognition of this judgment here recognition that was not the case mcdonald's st filed a motion to dismiss which we throw we withdrew and then you filed oppositions which also weighed in abandon after that there's an obligation of the new york law it could not go back court had said as a matter of law you do not have an interest and you don't you're not interested you do not have a right to post judgment interests then the case recognize the actually recognize the right of so very proud to to post judge many interesting just say there's a procedural annoyance there's a procedural no ones that you have to comply and as a matter of law under their recognition act that procedural no one is irrelevant is your good morning your honour's john bunky for mcdonald's corporation your honour's there are five he facts in our view that show that the district court here should be affirmed and that the decision of judge fazio was correct  mcdonald's nd there is only one judgment that has ever been entered in this case by the salvadoran courts or by any court and it's for a very specific amount twenty three million nine hundred and seventy seven thousand four hundred and ninety three dollars we wrote a check it's in the record for that precise amount in two thousand and twelve in paid into the salvadoran treasury cert talent just told your honor that the courts in el salvador did not reject a claim for interests that surprised to had made debts respectfully not accurate the district court among other things s specifically page fifteen of a ruling at the bottom the very last sentence numerous courts in el salvador have affirmed that the judgment is limited to the principle amount plaintiff has received in the plaintiffs is not retarded entitled to interest on that judgment that in this case with respect to this judgment in this litigation this particular case that is now the subject of this appeal there was no award of interest ever made and it was in fact rejected eight separate times eight separate times we have it decides on page ten of our brief now sir prato seems to think that because this was a procedural issue and it didn't plead interests in the st place and el salvador law can now make some other claim in el salvador for interest we hadn't heard anything about that until for years in this litigation but it sort of primal thinks it has some other right to pursue some other case in el salvador then i suppose it will take that step but it doesn't change the fact that in this case not only has there never ever never been a united states judgment entered no no judgment has ever been recognized in this case or domesticated and recognized in this case dollar the the foreign court that issued the foreign judgment has said eight separate times or the foreign courts have said eight separate times that the judgment they were law held that surprised it was not entitled to interest numerous times in this case the case in which the judgment was entered they were not discussing on appeal that makes this case different from any other case is  both st of all i think she was right to hold it was moot rule fifty three i'm sorry now with article fifty three of the c i b c mellon case and other cases it's clear as courts have held that the whole point of article fifty three dollars is to recognize foreign judgments that have not been paid and converting those into new york judgments so they can be and enforced and the c i b c military base and other cases in the district court said  fifty three is the precise judgment the precise case where the seven or the court said no interest is appropriate secondly there has never been even even  as a threshold point before the question of interest under article fifty three and all these other cases that are cited the issue is the issue of interest on a united states judgment that has been recognized in and forced in domestic aid here there was no judgment domesticated ever at any point in time under article fifty three because article fifty three doesn't apply when the judgment has been paid as happened here in el salvador that that makes this different from any other case that has ever been reported is the district court recognized there is no case in federal court federal jurisprudence new york state jurisprudence  servitors prudence or any other court of appeals no case respectfully or honors that says that in that a standalone right to interest exists where a foreign judgment has never been recognized in  united states court and on the issue of comity to refer to accept the rule that sir prado is suggesting turns the issue of comity on its head in the reason for that is this is not a our briefs the reason they didn't collect can collect on the interest was because i'm sorry on the initial judgment after the payment two thousand and twelve is because the case was on appeal all these years based on s on appeal here we have the sites at page eighty nine dollars of our brief acknowledged that the payment to the treasury is an appropriate way to satisfy a judgment in el salvador so look we paid the judgment after the our peals in el salvador or resolved against us we paid the judgment because our intellectual property had been uncovered and we wanted to resolve this case so we paid the judgment to the penny sir prado then chose to appeal interest not payment of the judgment in el salvador the reason was because mcdonald's never tender that payment instead mcdonald abused the procedure to deposit the funds in the court registry to force service pronto to give up it by by the judgment debtor and he said there's nothing in the u k in that particular case that never even then had the judgment been paid in that case i mean the big difference here is a judgment was a before the enforcement proceedings were were  monies back to mcdonnell we had no standing your honor because in fact we were not even notified we were not even notified that the department of treasury had received his check and told mcdonald's notified us here mcdonald's never made that tender and that's from this circuit said was no after the objections are withdrawn there's an obligation and what we're going to do is we're going to recognise that you paid the principal amount in london in england but we're going to set off from the amount that would be otherwise do in recognition and remember this is the uniform recognition act that speaks uniformity throughout the united states as one of hundreds goals and that's what that's what the district court should have done here your hon