can we see the parties now an n b c financial versus boston merchant financial this case involves fraudulent unauthorized manipulative trades that were placed on their clearing account which is owned and operated by the united states claiming for these three trades that we set forth in our complaint these companies trade show on their face the fraudulent manipulated in an authorized transactions that were there were undertaken for them the spread on a typical four x transaction is two to four basis points the trades that we set district court me that is your appeal right bret right when you dress the district court misconstrued the client open application that my client signed when they form the relationship with the clearing firm that client the corporate client agreement is a two page document contains no integration clauses no severability clause does and does not relate in any way toward the acts that are alleged  complaint if any agreement controls this transaction of the on line trading agreement mr billows or in his affidavit stated that there was multiple agreements that were sent to my not say before the district court that  knew or that your company knew that it was signing the corporate client agreement and that that government authorized trading by the parties who signed it no your honor they signed in acknowledgment that they received fo authorized trading yes john but here we have an authorized trade in trades that were not in posed by the you tell me that if an agreement governs authorize trading and you accuse the counter party of unauthorized trading that's necessarily not covered by the agreement your honor we allege that the trades are were not answered my question is that argument is no your honor argument today is that there was fraud that was committed on these accounts that the trades are were in put it on the clearing account were not done by the client the client is a no deal desk for x broker they do not and put trades or sells their clients in the middle east and put these trades in their suit through the software that they are provided those trades go to the boston based trading desk of the appellee is here and that's where the trades are in put it here that the trees are were put it were not by anybody in the middle  east or nor they by any of the clients they were done with fraud and deceit by the a police agents or otherwise we have been provided the internet protocol address jordyn of five the people who perpetuated the fraud and that's why this case has to regulate fraud takes place within their jurisdiction so even if the form selection causes presumptively valid under the three the first three steps that are supporting philips it would be unfair to enforce it that would suggest that you could never have a form selection clause in the areas in which united states addresses an issue and that's that's plainly not the law now in martino's the court enforce the forms with nothing and there's nothing unfair where the parties sun if they signed an agreement that they were going to be they were going to litigate any disputes in in another forum i'm not sure how it's unfair to them they didn't sign the the corporate there's no signature on that page only two issues that are preserved but you've made a host of arguments but there are only two issues that you present and that's whether the agreement covers the dispute that you have here and then the other clause dictates that this should be decided in a tribunals in switzerland which is vague on its face that there's nothing to stop the police in this case if my client tried to go to switzerland i'm arguing that the tribunals set a unique one most of the clients that the police had had their own trading desks here there was no trading desk and there and therefore there was no counterpart of these transactions they were literally sn as individuals they signed up in agreement two thousand and nine was fraudulent trades are put on two thousand and twelve the c f t c n n f a registered entity was dissolved in two thousand and thirteen during the commencement of this action the b v i energy agreement mentions an arbitration form we don't we don't know that arbitration form is the corporate client greenman that that they attached in their papers is missing page eight was on page eight the entire contract fails thank you v i entity and has operations around the world and so switzerland is a relatively centrally located form i mean when you have transactions that are global in nature you kind of need a particular jurisdiction and so switzerland is relatively central with russian operations with middle east activities too so that would be the reason for the selection but i don't think the selection of switzerland is particularly reasonable or somehow just one wild whatsis wounds that often n agreement agreement that to the district court the appellant acknowledged having entered and agreed to those terms it's expressly stated in there the form selection clause it's includes mandatory language something that the appellant obs is not challeng a and so when you look to the press the fourth prong of philips of whether or not to enforce a form selection clause the burden is a heavy burden for the party opposing it to overcome and as i think the court indicated they  fall well short of that there is no public policy ground that would preclude it here form contemplated by the agreements which you and also includes that will be governed by british virgin islands law as is clear from the record both parties to this agreement are actually registered and formed in the british virgin islands that are seemingly nothing unfair about a party or entity being bound to the laws of which it is actually created and regulated by so and to valid form section clause to the provision regarding vacating a form section was in light of public policy concerns in bremen specifically identifies that it's public policy concerns that have been articulated either through prior case law or statute there's none here appellant of it any that would preclude enforcement of the form selection policy or the other issue i think that's preserved on appeal is whether or not the commodities exchange act claim here the court in the high court in sky technologies applied the fiona trust now sis to a form section clause and by that any language arising out of all relating to which is the lens you find here encompasses effect and like to address the appellate counsel's statements that there is no case law that supports the strong public policy in the robie case the court clearly stated that the securities act was a strong public  things i'm not aware i mean the fact of the matter is is that this fraud was perpetuated upon my client and that the a pelleas have done everything they could possibly do to avoid their obligations appeal so my client understands that there's a big burden that they must meet to invalidate a form selection clause as public policy on both sides but the purpose of the commodities exchange act is protect all market participants and insure fair practice and honest dealing on the commodities exchanges that is the public policy that we're arguing today that when individuals remain in the united states commit fraud within the united states they should be held to account