when this case was on appeal to the nd time registering to do business in the last surrounding that aspect of the law changed drastically with respect to forfeiture the static case is instruc connecticut's law was no longer good under time or left said new york is now an open question when you decide this is a new york is an open question and we have said that in that situation where there's no no longer any contradictory authority that you then have an obligation to raise it and instead you want full with a bench trial you want to a whole bench trial without raising a personal jurisdiction issue that this court had told you you have available to you now so what's your response to because it wasn't available york is now open question why did time or so why why are you saying that we don't have the ability to go forward at that point that was a green light that you can raise this now instead you went to a bench trial that was in a green light because at that particular time when brown was decided they caution people in new york saying that the new york registration statue was more robust than the legislature we even had rules that they were deciding to clarify personal jurisdiction brown was brown  the green light army you know which army no is two thousand and sixteen because up until that point judge there was absolutely not a single case in the state court and only one case in the southern district of new york which was chat wall which said but there was still a somehow is is what was necessary for you to move forward that this record had no binding authority on anybody you're saying that was what we needed in the district court there was a conflict in the law that was not settled entire mean what you mean is cases finally decided that conferring direct personal jurisdiction registration was no good law prior to tamary know the new york state courts all held uniformally that wrenching to do business was personal jurisdiction and let's let's assume for the right political sake of this argument that the chat while case was my invitation to come back that was february two months before trial with the district court said was you thousand that you worked at the defense if you fail to raise it despite a decision that might support you that might support you so it doesn't have to be it does have to be available and i still don't understand how brown did not make this available to you whether you thought the weight of authority was against you when this court says this is an open question you might have a coin auction at the hawk that says a party cannot be deemed to waive the jacksons or the benches which were not known to be available at the time they get st of the name the mere failure to interpose such a defense prior to the announcement of a decision which might support it cannot prevent a litigator later invoking such a ground if there was a there was a serious conflict in the law honor we entered the case and in february two thousand and eleven within a month it was up on appeal for lack of sort of managers direction for three and a half or three years three months it sat up in this court went back down with the instruction that you need to determine alter ego under u s law again when that came down primarily a judgment debtor not appellants made another motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that took several months to decide we participated in in this proceeding for thirteen trial if you look at the alter ego findings of fact they do not withstand scrutiny here even if you say mr bennett for for that right which we don't not concede here the alter ego if you look at commingling of funds and ownership the two biggest badges of alter ego there is not a single finding of fact which supports an intermingling a fund between primarily the judgment debtor and appellant there's only a nine percent interest between a common shareholder one shareholder up here for the nd time went back down and he wrote a decision two and a half years later and said my guy was not credible which was inconsistent with his prior finding you still have to review those findings of fact a clear era and under this under the scrutiny that we give for alter ego cases it doesn't exist here take for example take for example intermingling of funds he has six findings intermingling of funds and finding one of four doesn't even discuss the appellant's with respect to ownership the next eleven findings and when you boil it all down the only finding is that there is one shareholder that is from primary that has a nine percent interest in some of the appellant's no interest in win if you if you remember the primary is the judgment debtor primary i had no control whatsoever over the appellants the appellant's were part of a cross facility agreement to build ships the opinion talks about their relationship but it doesn't connected to prime era at all if you go through those findings of fact you will have a very difficult me had the opportunity to listen observe weigh and measure and he found his testimony to be not credible now the fact that in two thousand and sixteen he determined that in one specific instance he testified credib and so far as speculating in f f a as that's all the two thousand and sixteen decision addresses not everything else in so far as the alter ego findings of fact are concerned the testimony was in fact all over the map to use my the the fact that there was two and a half years between his ultimate findings of fact and the trial is not not unusual at all in the history of this court when cases are remanded back to the district court for further findings of fact i think the history of the d g harmony is something in the order of who or where five years between the actual trial and further findings of fact nothing unusual about that at all the case was twenty cases i do remember credibility city of bessemer also addresses the issue of what constitutes clearly erroneous findings of fact now you've not heard any challenges as to the law and it's correct because there are no challenges to the law  challenges to the court's factual findings in which case this court has to determine that it's clearly erroneous there hasn't been an argument that it is implausible based upon the entire record the judge cotto could find old nineteen of these defendants to be alter egos or for america he's just said on this particular issue i think he's wrong on this particular issue i think is wrong the fact of the matter is judge cole had all of the evidence before him and he specifically issued one hundred and sixty eight dollars individual findings of fact and specifically on the issues of alter egos each supported by either testimony or documentary evidence which is  incredibly thorough the you know at the end of the day he found all ten factors finding in favor of the of the holy of alter ego against each and every defendant as your honor described it this was a single enterprise that's what this was all coronas and nick coronas operated these companies as if they were one this idea that there's only nine per cent ownership interest in the coronas we have no evidence of mr colonus is ever ownership of primary not it was never produced the only thing we have is the records which were filed in the greek mercantile office which showed him to be the sole owner primary and that's what on a total lot of on the interest rate of eight percent where does not come from the interest rate of eight percent is a matter of english law remember now that this case actually started off as a recognition of an english high court judgment and english high court and for an english law post judgment interest is eight percent we prayed for it in the complaint we prayed for throughout in our pleadings is there something  well in fact we think percent yes we have introduced the the english judgment act which establish it is an eight percent rate post judgment during this nine year period percent was based upon english law based on judgment act the ability for us to recover legal fees for the further proof further pursuit of this judgment was something that was found in the contract and found in  in the butts also found in the in the english judgment but it's the legal fees are in a contract the interest rate that is included in the f a master terms relates to prejudgment interest in england and that's what the president seen live or the live or plus two that had strictly to do with prejudgment interest in england not post judgment interesting on much is the same as we would hold true in this court so the evidence no questions were raised judged total have no issue or problem understanding the very simple english law on that point your honor is one of the cases which i think this court should consider is actually and like a cool versus ecuadorian line and in that particular case this court affirmed a summary judgment decision in the lower court wherein it found like here all ten factors favor the finding alter ego on summary judgment the district court entered a favor entered judgment in favor of the plane to finding that all of the defendants were alter egos of the judgment debtor just like here but that was summary judgment this was a trial to trial w law of each of the elements he didn't say this is it this is everything these are some of the examples when it comes to the intermingling of funds there was lots of discussion about the fact that for america and paul coronas diverted funds away from air funds that to the f s a were being diverted away sometimes to non parties to this case see dance ok being one of them primrose being another one moreover he was diverting funds away to a company called j p c investments which is in fact a company his mother owns the company he claimed to have no knowledge about he didn't know who the office of rights is at had no idea who they were but they gave a one million and a half dollar interest free loan further interest further evidence of com of funds george was in fact the payment of legal fees in this case legal fees being billed to one dollar defendant one entirely separate allegedly group of defendants being the ball carrier companies of being paid by the tanker companies there's the intermingling of funds is is evidence throughout in the record in the one hundred and sixty eight findings of fact i take exception when i hear someone say we have not proved we have not proven a particular interest issue on a particular point when as judge cole found documents that should have been produced were never produced and the witness loss very difficult to establish a particular point when a witness lies throughout that point now in this particular case judge co discredit his testimony and did so correctly and white cake cool is informative for me for a number of reasons but primarily this  go dry filed this action ten years ago we've been before this court three times twice before your honor we have and judge colored his words had to with similar arguments summarily affirm the decision of the district court three days after the oral argument and i would ask this court to do the exact same thing because if in fact just delayed is justice denied and justice mandates that this case be summarily affirmed either remanded for the assessment of legal fees for the prosecutor for the defense of this appeal or this case court keep states primarily on behalf of j p c no diversion of funds is absent not a single particular finding of fact that shows into making the funds with respect to spot no production of documents that's primarily primarily is represented by squire pac bob's they were in liquidation they didn't produce documents judge cole with respect to my clients we produced board directors meanings shareholder meeting meetings bank records and the judge pacifically held no spoliation with respect to a pounce because they got in the case late with respect to attorney's fees never requested in the complaint medical plane finally faxed to a pretrial of what actually is not entitled to attorney's fees with respect to interest the parties agreed that will be live or plus two percent not a percent and if you want to rely on the law of england post judgment interest ceases at six years you can't have it both ways think about what would happen if everyone was an was our reza for the st time because it was raised by defendants after trial they never isn't there meant a complaint complaint the joint pretrial order the at the trial they never prove that under the judge and the f a that they were told interest or attorney's fees after i waive something that was never even raised or played properly with respect to alter ego findings of fact it cannot withstand the scrutiny what's happening here is is plaintiff says the father business in two thousand and eight during a financial collapse went under and i want you to make the son pay for it and all the other shareholders and nothing to do with primary there's absolutely no indicia of alter ego here the district or complaint cannot withstand the scrutiny of this court it just simply cannot thank you