there because the trial court believed that the serbian restitution agency was an available and adequate form and that in considering and weighing public and private factors but they all weighed stationary so in favor of that fence that the case should be transferred to gargrave we believe that was aryana first and foremost so i'm mr passage it appears that relatives of one of the plaintiffs are seeking compensation in serbia through the serbian restitution agency does conducting parallel proceedings in the united states create the of conflicting judgments or the possibility of a double recovery not in this case your honor for several reasons firstly his arse to the proceedings in belgrade and it requires i think a little bit of explanation about what the serbian restitution agency is it is an administrative agency it's an administrative agency that was created under the law of restitution in the republic of serbia in two thousand and eleven in order to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of claims that were going to be made by citizens of serbia against the government of serbia for the nationalization of properties that took place in one thousand nine hundred five with the fall of the communist government in the socialist government and the institution of the whole period of transitional democracy one of the things that had to be accomplished in the entire nation was the transition between state owned property and private property so that private owners of private property such as develop its family such as the demons family would have an opportunity by making a claim for restitution against the government of serbia before the serbian restitution agency the serbian restitution agency was specifically and exclusively created by the law in restitution in order to provide a forum for claims for restitution and by restitution it is it is meant that property in kind would be returned to those individuals the claim that we are making here against the carlson radisson hotel is not for property restitution it is an entirely different claim against involving entirely different parties so that we have as parties the serbian restitution agency could not even if it wished to entertain our claim their hands are told occupied by the exclusive jurisdiction that they've been given and the soldiers diction over these hundreds of thousands of claims that are being made by serbian citizens to get property restored to them these are not tort claims for use of the property these are claims to simply get the they would not be compensated there was no remedy here for the improper use of that property that's being made by the hotel group since two thousand and fourteen so that none of these parties are the diff first of all the parties are not under the jurisdiction and cannot be brought into the jurisdiction of this administration agency toda the hotels are on the property you're trying to get back that's what how the law first that you should evolve it still evolving probably what would happen is the whole it's ours would continue to operate and as as the owners of the property would have a right for claims  for compensation for the illegal use of the property so so soul searching courts have exclusive jurisdiction in disputes involving real property in servia right the serbian restitution agency has exclusive jurisdiction for the claim that spinning made by the belt which family it's not a parallel claim is just broken i was asking me those are the claims to get restitution if if and if restitution is not possible and there are a number of reasons for exceptions that restitution might not be possible including bona fide purchasers purchasers in which case some type of agreement would have to be reached between the actual owners of the property and the users of the property there are a number of our conditions the form of in kind restitution of the property has no jurisdiction over a claim for wrongfully use of the property if if we and distinguish the difference between for example a and injunctive relief that gets property back even if they got the property back they would be given no compensation for the illegal use of that property that's a separate and distinct claim over which the serbian restitution agency has no jurisdiction because it has no jurisdiction over the parties here it only and you're not going to get the hotels you get the property back and therefore you know can charge them rental we can't get the property back in the case or are claiming here are against radisson and carlson the property if it comes back and it's by no means clear that it will because there's a there is a second remedy if the property doesn't come back then there's this compensation fund that might be created in lieu of the property coming back and that's still very much an open question serbia whether we'd even be able to get the property back it might be that if we're not entitle to the property back as carlson and rason claim then we're simply kept in terms of a certain amount of compensation which we believe is totally inadequate but that  serbian restitution agency because it has no jurisdiction over the parties and it has no subject matter jurisdiction over the claim for wrongful use so you said they might not be able to get the property back what evidence is there in the record that that alex and nicholas are owners of that property the there's a decision has been made there to los that that that are somewhat irrelevant to this a lot of rehabilitation which gives them the right to have standing before the serbian restitution agency you  serbian court which they did in two thousand and nine that you are the owners of the property you don't have standing before the parser being restitution agency how much you can show that you have ownership rights no one's really contesting that the defense experts agree that they have ownership rights there's no dispute about that but they're simply saying they don't have rights of possession and possession would be given under the serbian restitution agency or in lieu of that some compensation in lieu of possession that's the only claim are you saying forgive me but are you saying that the plaintiffs would be barred from filing a claim for that reason in front of the sri i claim for what we're seeking here absolutely for two reasons yes are they or has neither personal jurisdiction over or the parties it has jurisdiction only under the statute to create it against involving claims against the serbian government for restitution by former owners so any claim that's being made before the s r a has to be a claim against the serbian government the s l a cannot only entertain a claim being made by the serbian residents for restitution of the property if they can't get the property back then it is because the remedy that they're given is some compensation in lieu of that by a fund that has not even been have a claim for against carlsen and radisson and there was a way that we we can't we're ministry of agency we can't hear any claims against carlsen and we can hear a claim against the serbian government while we have a claim for usage rights we're not we can't entertain that either they would simply tell us you have to go somewhere else we're an administrative agency that has been created by statute strictly limited to claims only against the serbian government for restitution of property if you can if we can't give you  seeking is the rest to show the proper not in this case absolutely not we're not seeking restitution property we're simply i think you wanted the property back but carlson would continue to operate its hotels on it you get the property back what more do you want first of all they may not be able to give us the property back your honor but that if we got the property back it's still better to compensate us for the wrongful use of the property  make a separate claim with this gets back to the question asked of originally which is the serbian courts have exclusive jurisdiction in disputes involving real property rights in serbia and you said the government was the real owner of the property now and so i just don't understand not satisfied with getting the property back first of all they haven't gotten the property back they haven't well you must try i don't understand it why aren't they just asking this serbian agency to give the property back we are well what what do you want to have a loss of the united states that the because we're seeking here compensation for the wrongful use of that property s our right if you can't get the property back we have in illinois presidents who has been wronged by the conduct i know that doesn't mean you can sue companies all over the world in illinois no but that's a start we have an illinois resident who's making a claim again i taking place outside your you want to sue a minnesota company for harms to property owned by your clients or thinks on buyer clients and and you want to sue them in illinois that's what we're doing  reza door would have to be dismissed in any event because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over him that's a that's a separate issue as you as your honor knows that is their position we believe that resident not to build but to operate this hotel on our clients or on our client's property we don't have possession of the property but we have ownership rights of the property were establishing that in a separate claim that has nothing to do with this granting before an agency that cannot hear this claim that's not authorised to get an administrative agency that's not authorized to hear this claim that's why there's no avail that the serbian restitution agency that jurisdictional issue by resident which is separate and apart from me for my own convenience we would have to be looking at the residue or carlson joint venture headquartered in minnesota and explore that further in terms get started i'd like to just clear up a few issues that came up on the opening arguments first of all just for the so the records clear my client is named rest or hotel group maybe i don't think that there is or there's no radisson party  joint venture between carlson and reds and resit or so we're entirely a foreign company and that's why we've we've moved on on the lack of jurisdiction i also wanted to address i believe his counsel said that we don't contest their ownership rights we've the defendants in this case have contested any claim by plaintiffs that they have ownership rights or usage rights over the land throughout this lawsuit so we've we've been very consistent on that point and i think it's important to understand the basis for its claims here they say that their ancestors own stock in a joint stock company called the and they say in one thousand nine hundred five the government nationalized that's that cooperative and took their stock away from them and they said that the cooperated before that point owned the land in serbia and then it was taken away from them so  so what plaintiffs are saying is that they are descendants of people who own stock in a company that owned this land now for their or their distinct in that they drew between usage rights and the taking or  getting the land back and restitution i think we got there eventually but what the serbian attorneys in this case their declarations have have said is that the restitution agency has two types of relief they can offer can offer in kind restitution in certain circumstances and it can offer government bonds up to at least five hundred thousand euros so what the serbian attorneys have said is that when you have lan like this that is developed land owned by a private or the the posture of this land is that the serbian government has ownership rights over it but a private party has usage rights over the land and so when it in entities are actually operating the hotel but the us are a could order different types of relief under the restitution act that would have facts to land there so we've agreed in this case that whatever the u s or a decides with respect to this land w will abide by it we're not going to challenge that decision and i think that really highlights the distinction in this case on availability which is  argument on availability here is that the touchstone of whether a foreign venue is available is the source of relief in that forum which is to say plaintiffs say that a foreign form is available only if it can require the defendants to make relief to the plaintiffs whereas we say a foreign forum is available if it provides relief to the plaintiffs for their plane and in this case all the plaintiffs claims are premised and predicated the idea that they have some usage rights or ownership rights over the land and that issue can only be decided by the u s are a so i think our position on availability is supported by the supreme court's honor i think the one of the issues is that the proceedings before the u s array we can't get all of the documents that been filed before the survey my understanding is that all all of those claims are still pending before the the agency and the relevance i believe is that it demonstrates the plaintiffs who if you look at the first many complaint plaintiffs say we're bringing this case on behalf of the family interest in this property well the family has recognized that the proper forum for those claims is the serbian restitution agency they've already brought claims before they're trying to get restitution and that is the alternative forum here and it does offer them and their family members relief the plaintiffs have brought their case in minnesota your honor with respect to resit or a b no because we are a swedish company with a purpose principal place of business in belgium so there is no general personal jurisdiction with respect to specific personal jurisdiction we argue that every allegation in the complaint relates to activities that happened in serbia a plane of say that some things may have happened in minnesota but you know we disagree that that gives rise to personal jurisdiction but in any event they did choose to bring this in illinois and there is no allegation that suggests that any activity here relates to anything that happened in illinois interest factors that the district court weighed and properly properly weighed in the outcome that the district court reached but one i'm compelled to respond to one issue here which i think is a fundamental issue with the defendants believe this fundamental issue in this case whether this case proceed wherever this case proceeds the claims of trespass conversion civil conspiracy those claims cannot even be stated without a plaintive showing the predicate element of having actual possession of the property or an ownership right and the only forum that can determine that is the serbian restitution agency that that is a very big problem to be honest and we believe that the district court recognized that and said this case needs to be adjudicated in serbia said i'd like to just just make that very clear on the record that no matter where this proceeds those predicate findings have to be made and there is only one jurisdiction that can meet make that either the serbian court system or the serbian  nothing to prohibit plaintiffs from taking an order from the serbian restitution agency in kind of restitution so for example if the serbian restitution agency determines which the district court knew record from cross in hotels in the cross in hotels in is a mere license or of the radisson blu brand so it is neither in possession of the property in belgrade it's not the owner of the hotel and it's not the operator of the hotel and as we know from our argument today it's not the owner of the underlying land so i wanted to make that clear to the court because i think it is a it is a major defect in the  turn so what has been alleged in the case is that plaintiffs are members of two for are the descendants of two families that owned shares in a joint stock company called the frock or cooperative as my co counsel said so plain to themselves there's nothing in the record to establish that the plaintiffs themselves have a direct interest in this land and that goes to our article three standing problem which we also believe is a major defect in proceeding in this form plaintiffs have now i established that they are for example personal representative of their ancestors or execut the state or that there or that there is a direct interest of the plaintiffs themselves have so yes they have their answer it's alleged that their ancestors have an interest in a joint stock company that allegedly own the land but as far as exercising some sort of owner direct ownership interest there is that that's not established in the record and we've made an argument that the plaintiffs lack standing under the jurist under the precedent of this court including the slave to slave descendants litigation so no nothing is known about the home of the ancestors may have left their stock to that's correct and not only that if you look at the face of the complaint your honor there are others who own shares in that joint stock company who are not before this court we don't know who those families are those individuals are so we could be in a situation in which the district court in the northern district of illinois is adjudicating property in rent property rights against descendants of a legit owners when there are other owners or other rightful heirs or personal represent anons are executors who could also have a claim to that property and that is believed judge wrote winners one of her first questions was how do we deal with the fact that this these parallel proceedings in the serbian restitution agency could very well create completely two decisions completely at odds actually eighteen decisions and perhaps one decision here that are completely at odds and could could very well create competing decisions and rights to the land and i believe the district court who had all of this before him recognized that way the public interest factors weighed the private interest factors the court in the second sentence of its opinion recognizes that the plaintiffs themselves are not even the real parties and interest plant the court says that the plaintiffs are here representing their family interests if the court has any further questions for me i'm happy to address them but but these are the real problems we see with proceeding in this district we cannot make a claim before the serbian restitution agency unless we've established those ownership rights those on the ship rights were established right decision a final decision of a serbian court in two thousand and nine written that renewed all of the property rights for new the named rehabilitate the name and the property rights that have been taken away in one thousand nine hundred five that's the decision that we're relying upon there's no serbian court that needs to be brought forward decision that needs to be made beyond that decision that's already been made that gave us the ownership rights restored our ownership rights and gave us the right then to proceed before the serbian restitution agency and as far as the standing issue is concerned that there were but travel you don't want to be before the serbian restitution if you want to be in the northern district of illinois we believe we're entitled to be in both places your honor because we're seeking different remedies from relief for the wrongful use of our property it cannot do that it has no jurisdiction over that it can only determine whether having established our ownership rights which we have and by the way they are no more they are no less i think proper for standing here minnesota we believe that the company in minnesota has sufficient presence in illinois to allow us to do that your honor why does it have an illinois resident has been damaged by their conduct by their torches conduct so you just hear your views abolished personal jurisdiction you think that you can sue anyone in the world who's caused anyone any one of the they're conducting business in illinois your honor to the extent that they do anything in illinois to harm your clients the harm to our client was primarily done by their activities in minnesota that's correct your  be operated they are under the operating agreement carlson and resit or are additional insurance under the operating remit the operating agreement provides that all this hotel is going to be conducted in operated under the standards the system the carlson system are all all that planning to run it for the operation of this hotel was done in minnesota the agreement the operating agreement that's part of the record here between the wholly owned subsidiary of of resit or ident had a danish company and a serbian company is required to be in english is in english all the documentation of that agreement has to be in and when when was this done in minnesota the harm to hear clients harm to our clients was done when they began operands when i when they began operating when was that they began operating the restitution was passed in two thousand and eleven so it was between two thousand and eleven and two thousand and fourteen was the opening date i think we have an opening date here carlson announced the opening of the hotel and nov seventh of two thousand and eleven the operation of the hotel under their brand name all of this all of these meetings all of this conduct all of the paper every written communication relating to the operation of this hotel has to be in english now why would between a danish company and a serving company be required to be in english and all written communications be in english why because the real masters of this good people are really interested are in my old i home i'm sorry aren't required by whom to be  carlson and resit or under the system established by carlson any reza any any customer that goes into that hotel becomes a member of the carlson priority club carlson is here is entitled to take any if you go into that hotel today carlson is entitled to take the information that they get from your reservation and use it in their marketing to use it and in any number of ways that that can enhance and expand their global marketing system carlson and giving us the undersea price which gave us the standing to proceed before the serbian restitution agency but only on his claim for restitution and if i draw your attention again to the dead case it's very clear in the death case the alternative form must have jurisdiction over all the parties the serbian restitution agency does not have jurisdiction over the parties and their consent and it was not a consent simply said that they will not object to or intervene in the decision of the serbian restitution