it talks about that that the obligations in the agreement are between the corporations the signatories to the those signatories to the agreement isn't that right  think i'm not sure i agree with that because what you know then the provision you read is specific to section eight isn't it that's correct and then section being in there says that it's  listed and not the individuals of those organizations what it provides for there is limitations on remedies against and limits of this to a dispute between the entities itself and in be bound by this based on the embedded arbitration provision and the rules under jams themselves which are unique they are not the month which the triplett has the general specifically say that an arbitrator will decide who are the so from our perspective we believe that we get passes that because there's no question here about a formation of the underlying agreement and the embedded arbitration provision it is then so we don't have to go through those two step to invoke the arbitration agreement mr tuchman doesn't even dispute that here we need both prongs of that all stop so then the question i think does is the question courts getting at is what about the plaintiff who is also a non signatory in here the point that mr homer was leading with is that we would not even be here with these questions if the proper party had sued and the one question that mr tuchman has never answered in this case he didn't answer to the trial court below after the fact and try to force one of those signatories to arbitrate and the facts you're there completely uncontested that's exactly what happened here byrd film fund sued the fraudsters weathervane and forced capital in state court there is consent judgment and so it is not inequitable or inconsistent for brad toughman even if he is part from fun for whatever reason to sue here the only other thing i would say your honour's is to life south insurance company discourse specifically said look we need to be very careful about our previous cut case law because sometimes it doesn't make a distinction as to whether state law applies or federal law applies i've x was tempted to apply federal law and in fact i we think we pleaded that perfectly well there is no issue or question that the money came from mr tuchman personally and in fact the units there was an issue you can just look at the u s attorney's indictment which lists mr brad tuchman as a victim as a sponsor of the sponsor defense that that operates says it's not like it's an affirmative defense where you say this fails to state a claim because he's trying to clean up an arbitration agreement and you know it i that's an argument about the merits it's not an argument about the arbitration well we think that you know what the court has said because of the pro or patrician policies the courts are required to look behind the substance of what the you know we've laid out our position on this i think after carlisle it's quite clear that they think that arbitration perversions can be enforced against parties who are not as a result i think there is no question that equitable stop goal would permit mr torres and chase to invoke the arbitration provision here and then we switch again as they didn't yell or to the other side of the v t to answer the panel's question regarding panel's concern question about this but i think it's important the point that mr homer made in every instance where you have an l l c like this one that is controlled by one individual that l l c could avoid an arbitration provision simply by using its principle to sue in his personal name and it is a question of arbitration because the ultimate question here is whether these parties agree to it or out arbitrate and there's really no question that mr tuchman did do that he did that on behalf of the l l c that he controls and now he's trying to avoid that agreement by simply name himself it's not just a defense to the case but the question is whether we should be an arbitration in the st place and the answer is yes because m