received an award of about six five percent of the original amounts they demanded from my client back in january twenty million forty two thousand and fourteen take into consideration was ultimately awarded in unpaid contributions pre judgment interest and liquidated d damages on this appeal we continued to challenge the order prejudged were interested liquidated damages and the amount of the attorney fees turning st to the concept of pre judgment interest as we no in our brief that's the court with the request made by the trustees themselves in their motion for a word of it burning copies interest and liquidate damages following three man by this court and this the evidence by the trustees is quote the total interest in liquidated damages owed on the delinquency as of february th two thousand and eighteen is one thousand one hundred and twelve dollars eighty five cents if you divide that  inconsistent with the request for relief and the evidence of juice by the trustees themselves as noted in our brief there we believe that there is another error that was never addressed by the district court namely that the  that the maximum rate is governed by quote the law of the state which in this case it was under the document they relied upon then the law of the state can affect the interest rate recoverable in this case we have  of the documents say that the interest rate is governed by the mac the amount allowable under nebraska law a one five percent and the month or excuse me one five percent per month equates to eighteen percent per annum which is improper this is this is to dismiss just to see if i'm following you would you restate the specific number you believe was would be the appropriate preachers would interest in please your honor we don't think that that's apply state law and if you apply state law it's zero but as we set forth in our brief the alternative calculation is then to resort potentially if you don't apply the penalty in her breast the law is then to look to the federal statute which had simply limited its awards what was requested and what was set forth in the affidavit evidence set forth by the trustees of that one thousand one hundred dollars figure if the court does not cap it at what was requested and what the evidence is nice submit and part of the problem is the district court just comes up with a number of reciting calculation explain how it got there because they cite the number which is inconsistent with a request for relief the other main the award of attorney fees in light of the recovery after this court's decision the amount recovered by the trustees was cut by about sixty percent and yet the district court increased the  is there was no cross appeal by that the trustees as to the original thirty eight thousand dollars war of the cement that under the law the case and the mandate rule that your cap at that thirty eight thousand and then you look for the downward give a shit and this case the court said that a fifty percent downward deviation was appropriate given the results obtained which again are a fraction of what was originally requested in this case at the outset of the demands as a consequence we submit that at best it should be fifty percent of that thirty eight thousand dollars figure originally awarded because there were simply no crosses and i would know there were no response  arguments about the failure to cross appeal or the fact that they're relying on wholly new evidence which is outside the scope of the mandate a lot of this court without a reserve remain for a little hundred and fifty seven dollars the district court did not set forth in its order its mathematical calculations for reaching that amount is not difficult to understand that how i remaining in support of the recalculation of interest and that affidavit did set forth an interest rate of five hundred and fifty six dollars for that same seventy two month period but obviously that was incorrect and it was a miscalculation it had decibels way out of place so the district court properly disregarded that it was clearly wrong and the district court properly did its own calculation of interest based on the one point five percent that the plan has for a delinquency interest rate and that one five percent has been in a p or used in numerous but after over a rest of cases for appeal courts and district courts across the country and in fact a two percent per month interest rate has even been upheld with reasonable determined that the amount of time was reasonable and then applied a reduction of fifty percent to that based on modest amount of contributions that were ultimately recovered  defendant wants to argue that that that should be reduced even greater because the plans were not in it his opinion or in the defense opinion were greatly unsuccessful in this case but that's completely wrong the plans were greatly successful in this litigation the main issue in this litigation was always whether there were existing valid and continuing collective bargaining  the plans were entitled under risk to interest liquidated damages in attorney fees whether we were entitled to interest attorney fees and liquidate i mean that was that was contested not just the were greatly successful and this litigation in in needs to be remember that the plans are multiroom ploy d or risk employee benefit plans and the plans have significant but do sherr duties troopers to pursue all pay contributions whether they're i one thousand dollars or fifty thousand dollars those unpaid contributions are the employee money and the monies are those of their families and it doesn't matter how great or how small it is the plans have to pursue them and we were significant significant least successful in this litigation in doing that clearly erroneous and on re man with the affidavit of counsel explaining that there were no double billings there was substantially different evidence which to sports the new analysis under that low star parys not just plans but also for the defendant with regard to interest and whether state law controls on usury or prejudgment procedures a recess specifically provides that interest shall be awarded and their respect case law provides that the interest is to be calculated based on the plans interest policies and rates in proceed years and not on state law and like i said before monthly interest on delinquent contribution the one point five percent have been interest at a sum certain that the cork may on its own that debt interest at some higher rate and that you are not bound by your prayer we do not have case law on that effect your arm but i mean we some we made those calculations we submitted those that affidavit are murray it was clearly wrong the decimals are way out of place five hundred sixty six dollars interest for seventy two year period is clearly wrong the district or properly disregarded it and did the calculations like i said and came up with that amount and that's proper for the district court to do says you either give a same award for interest or you calculate liquidated damages based on up to twenty percent of the paid contributions whichever the two is greater in this case this district  the same amount of liquidated damages interest there was no abuse of discretion in the attorney's fees war the calculations of interest and with a damages are proper under the dictate the scope of relief and i don't think it's so clear that it was iranians based upon the evidence if you take a three or four percent interest rate d which you could do and if you tied to the t bills apply that to the unpaid contributions works out to about one hundred between one hundred and fifty dollars and one hundred and seventy dollars a year which would then tie right into their five hundred dollars figure they don't get a nd bite at the apple to get to redo their evidence especially because you use the t bill rate their evidence would have coincided with your political race as it relates to the attorney fees there was no invitation by this court for new evidence to be submitted on the attorney fees rather this court sentence appeal that the reduction in the world of the contributions by sixty percent necessarily impacted the creek judge branches liquidate damage and term it did not invite reconsideration there was no response to in our case to the case of paul versus artful archer daniels or the big here versus levi strauss case which both say if you choose not to appeal you don't get a nd bite at the apple you don't get eight better result remain and if you choose not to appeal they say they confess that their original evidence was insufficient because they said they had to use new evidence to make it clear but on the other hand they say oh but the district court's original ruling was clearly an error it was clearly an error they should have cross appeal they don't get the benefit of failing to cross appeal and then get a better result and remain and when their reach their their recovery was reduced by sixty percent the bottom line is they should have been kept at the thirty eight thousand they chose not to cost he'll then when you apply the di