or that it should not be applied to your client because your client's claims were not as a member of  generally have followed the rules of other exchanges looked at the what was left out was saying is her issue the issue that they talk about in their brief is that a member bringing a shareholder suit should not be subject to that rule well that's clearly a legislative issue that should have gone up through the administrative process my point would be member own institutions for profit or nonprofit can have member lawsuits as well the fact that one is called a shareholder and once called a member both can be the equity holders of the dispute it please write to the accounting department advisor you're just lost it has nothing to do with the governance of the exchange regulatory powers of the exchange it has nothing to do with the reasons for which the rule was inactive it has to do with correct when you become a member of the stock exchange to enter into a contract you agree to abide by the by laws of the exchange and under under section six before there is a finding that  there is there is a charge there is a requirement that the exchange implement rules that will actually allocate these do the charges the i c c made a finding that under sixty four this rule was appropriate because rather than both in the exchange with the cost of one member's lawsuit against the exchange a lawsuit that did not provide i watch the number that not prevail those caution be allocated to the member and not through increase do this to other member senior now what this court is getting through  of that rule and that goes back to a judge to she was question this was not about that there is an administrative progress of administrative process here with three tiers of review there was a dispute it went to a hearing committee that was reprise of outside where members of the thought of the stock exchange there was a briefing it was discovery request it was provided there was a hearing this was not disputes whether she had appropriate notice of the telephone dial a number the record is clear i would submit that she did but that's just another factual dispute about about this hearing there is an appeal right the f c c she raises no issues no contentions in her brief about the  and also separately find that the rule was applied in a matter consistent with the purposes of the exchange that the i c c could take additional evidence if it wanted to by the way the f c c had the right to sue a spot they take the appeal it didn't functions of that the exchange must play and the rules that they have to effectuate the purposes that they have to themselves pass and adopt to effectuate exchange that one of those is rules governing the equitable allocation of the fees in dues and charges to the members and member affiliates another one of those roles requires the exchange to have a fair process for regulatory functions of the exchange the this is the second circuit has had a number of cases as well on what these regulatory functions are and they've absolutely found that not only the adjudicatory function that we're talking about here there is a hearing role to help equitably allocate fees do the charges this is a charge that was issued to ten month securities under under all six of the one under section sixty four of the exchange and the the stock exchange has spoken but here you have the benefit of three tiers of review we have not heard from the commission and the only reason we haven't heard from the commission is that under somebody's nineteenth the exchange issued its final order and penn had thirty days to appeal and what did they do in that thirty day period under somebody thirty first they filed this lawsuit instead they didn't take up as a court suggested they might have a dual track if they felt like they needed to go into court and by the way another are that the f c c provides this under the  find that helpful so there are abundant safeguards is it is exhaustion still available work and well it is available in the following two respects just one there's a thirty day rule for appealing but there is an required by statute to send it to the appropriate division got a recommendation from the division make the commission must make a determination they have to notify the petitioner of the determination and then that determination is appeal both the federal  i mean this is a congressionally mandated comprehensive system and it's a unique system of self regulation of our markets and is simply picking and choosing where it wants to go and it's choosing for no reason for profit and regular torrie activity and those cases occurred in relationship to the neutralized exchanges when they i had shareholders versus only