runners thank you and may please the court private party is a statutorily predicate jurisdictional term a district court applying the arbitration exception must apply to itself say exceptions applies and in doing so it must apply quote that detail federal law standards set forth in the act that did not happen here the district court said over and over again i the tribunal's findings the tribunal found the tribunal serious addiction was not at issue at that point in the discussion there was no that was not even relevant what was needed to be addressed right off the bat was what does private party mean who's coming in with conditions petitioning are you a private party as a string quarter slash here in a venezuela versus hungary it's not even enough to say oh well we aren't we presented a non frivolous claim they were a private party in fact they have to have evidence judge justice breyer said we have to do it we have we may have to evidence and it resolve it as soon as possible you usually agree with you there was a different basis or we saw there was record implied with so that alone would be sufficient to would be an implied waiver we said you said ended in is incorrect because well he said it in drawing the line between what is or is not a waiver and we distinguish two lines of cases right the ones where the signatory government has signed and the ones where the signatory i'm sorry the ones where the foreign state has signed the new york convention and the ones where it passed we said that was the relevant precisely the questioners asking the already has set a country does not waive its in unity under sixty five one a one by signing an international agreement that contains no mention of a waiver of immunity to suit in the united states has said time after time after that that the tape later did not change background principles of law it simply shifted the right ways to which is to say that exceptions like commercial activity and i would assume waiver ukrainian you're signing a convention in one hundred fifty eight and you're supposed to do to know that by doing that a letter from the act and acting legal advisor in the department of state means you have waves or sovereign immunity to enforce sovereign in a federal court could the could the foreign sovereign have waived its immunity i would assume so i don't know i don't know i don't know  but i want to go back to what we need to see what we're building up here you start from first principles and we can see what we're building what we're building we're building on a regime where you have a letter from the department of state we have your convention with no language held that notwithstanding amerada hess and notwithstanding your first principles arguments to us that signing the new york convention isn't enough on some theory that it's all about enforcement of our virtual war well keep in mind that c transport which is the case you're referring to i mean to  stand but i want to point out that the private party requirement is a predicate to getting two implied waiver your theory is that exemptions six a y waiver without crossing the private party threshold so one has to conclude one has to to revoke but i'm sorry but the private party requirement is an element of want correct correct and so the point is that when one wants to enforce an arbitration award one has to go through the gate six otherwise get set subsequent needle through the gate why not go through gate  because that would render it gave a six decent per florus one would never need to show the on was a private party would always come in and say implied waiver and a sixty would be superfluous this court does not read statues to render provisions meaningless investor that's the end of the story under your this isn't in chevron but that was long all in like course of addressing whether the claimant was an investor within the meaning of the relevant bit right and invest and that definition is somewhat idiosyncratic and specific to russia and ukraine so a lot why would we think that arguably there's a separate element in the f s a regarding not the jurisdiction of the tribunals for the jurisdiction of the district court well if private party has some other  meaning we haven't seen any case and the legislative history and the scholarly commentary any anything that would suggest it would mean anything other than an entity that is not  i mean there is no case that no case that suggests that thirty six percent state own company with some state appointed directors whether it is a public company with shares publicly traded held by the public bit would be the same as private party defined in any other bit be the same as private party as as defined in the fs cya correct but the point is you don't need to get into that the novo or indeed at all because the facts that were found if you can overrule would satisfy any conceivable definition that you with a federal court would attribute the words private party in section sixty five eighty six because all we have from the other side is well you know we don't like we think it's somehow connected with partners that makes it a non private party the tribunal looked at all of that stuff and came out exact opposite so if b g which i argued and lost if this means anything and your decision following it is chevron is very clear on this that's the end of the issue as far as your subject matter jurisdictions concerned plus of course you do have a warning and on anyone my friend with all respect was just wrong on every possible issue of course the tape letter i change and again and again and again if that's not a waiver it's hard to see what is a sign a treaty whose entire raise on that tree is that once i've arbitrated in a word against me to be enforced in other words how can i then say that i had to waive my immunity focus more specifically on the legal consequences of signing an arbitration agreement they limit the rule to cases where the claimant is a private party we haven't found it a they haven't found being a non private party then they lose they lose under the under a six and they also lose under a one and they had a chance to make this argument they lost before the tribunal they lost in right how much time public life all right we'll give you two minutes thank you your honor this is not chevron counsel is mistaken this case as just judge and questions that make clear shows that this is not about a provision that was submitted to the arbitrator's and we have to start down the right path so judge randolph your question about will use for the benefit of whose private party the district court didn't even define what private party means as a matter of federal law that's where one before one could ever ask whether tatton qualifies or we have another fact is by your lights this is a jurisdictional question correct and cause us to raise capital for the benefit of tatarstan and pay the debts and tatarstan to you so you dispute that seventy percent of the shareholders are non governmental and we don't know right now because we don't even have been able to have discovery all we have is the record that was in arbitration and what what this the supreme court said last year in venezuela is that you need to have discovery up front and that has not happened here let me address the tape letter issue and the issue of implied waiver because the tate letter this is cream court would be very surprised to learn what my colleague said about the impact that the titanic impact of the fate letter the supreme court said in two thousand four the tiller had little if any impact on federal courts approve roche to immunity analysis in two thousand and fourteen in argentina vienna no capital it said that the f s a any replaced the factory intensive loosely common w