and it's a unique system so this is not your standard arbitration enforcement case in which there's a case into the new york convention or some other cases being heard in that and it's lots of implications  runs throughout the case so there is use here that are a matter of st impression in the circuit and as far as we're aware anywhere one of those tests do with the unique procedural history in the exit where you ha council can discuss this but i will say as far as i'm aware based on recent discussions there is no decision on the request for revision once that i can say that once that request for revision or interpretation think there's a deadline by which you know when the court will do that but even once that happens you have one hundred and twenty days let me ask you counsel you started out by saying it is a self contained system and yet i understand you want to and a rule of completeness as has been applied by the courts under federal tracing law wouldn't that be inconsistent with the convention no your honor i don't think it would be inconsistent with the convention because the purpose of the there's nothing in the convention or in the implementing language that talks about the complete or it will mix the reference well it doesn't speak in that language but it does set up a system whereby once there is a decision you could move for a stay and that would be true of the original award of the anomaly and so why isn't that the completeness options offered under the convention in other words it's through a series of stays that all say the party against whom the award has been rendered can in effect postpone if the request for a stay is granted the effectiveness of the award and that would accomplish what it is not the same thing as what you are seeking in a rule of completeness stay until all these decisions have been rendered under this case number against your client and i would note that those rules were  complete arbitration rule is not about except it's about the courts it's about efficiency it's of the other issues when you look at the basis for the complete arbitration rule it's so you don't have pieces be decided piecemeal and a system that might allow for a stay does not deprive this court or the district court of deciding that it's better to wait to with force or that it should wait to enforce decisions  arbitration is complete because that doesn't have anything to do with the xom convention and well what about article fifty three that recognition and enforcement and paragraph true says for purposes of this section or award shall include any decision so when i read that i thought well that's not the type of completeness that you've been arguing for it allows the winning party to have an award an award is in quotation marks provided it's pop properly certified and come to the court and the courts may be how should i put it the victims of having multiple requests for enforcement but that's the system that was set up and that's why i'm asking how could a court impose a rule of completeness when in effect you are seeking an interest in the courts and it's it gives you the opportunity to act in the interests of your client by seeking a stay that's what i'm trying to understand it's all very nice to me you know argue about our efficiency but if it's a self contained system and the courts have jurisdiction and that's very limited jurisdiction since we're to give full faith and credit how can we develop a nother system that says we're not going to act as article fifty dollars provides we're going to say to go hold on there we're not going to deal with this until this matter is completely resolved the parties and not sell not be subject to any appeal or remedy that's what it's talking about with the enforcement we're not suggesting that the complete arbitration rule means that the award can never be enforced what we're saying is  improper to enforce it at this point then we should wait till the end there's nothing in article fifty three dollars which suggests that this court doesn't have the power to decide whether or not something should happen and as it will until i award should be treated this does not prevent this court from exercising its duties to decide whether or not efficiency or engaging in piecemeal then it's hard for me to believe that if there was a exit arbitration know that was you know sending you know interim awards every you know couple of weeks that this court would allow those awards to continue to be an interesting hypothetical but that's not our case no trying to look at this convention you have what it contemplates and while there's not a lot of a lot out there the question of whether or not the system you're suggesting that the courts ought to adopt is consistent with the convention and i haven't heard you say it is but rather you're arguing we shouldn't be taxed with these interim awards except where your honor i do think it is and let me be clear that i do matter for the court to decide whether or not it can be enforced at a particular time it doesn't an older appeal or vacate we're not asking for the award to be vacated such that it can never be enforced we're asking about the complete because the unknown that was going on at the time because keep in mind is is is it's was twenty now articles fifty three dollars fifty four cents you know allow for a stay of there might be a revision to stay with you know that's and it is i think i did i'm trying to recall i think that standard would it in essence that standard essentially would be up to it would be in the description of your tradition tribunal is ahead no there's that has this process  i don't know what the effect of asking for stay would have then it's it's like filing a motion well i think in that it's an arbitration your honor is the only thing i can say because this is never been litigated because it's such a unique case this well i agree and i don't think it does what i'm saying is that these are exceeded rules this isn't the execution and i don't think that a rule that except problem with regard to how it handles arbitration and prevent this court heard here this morning your honor is that there is a discussion that these rules provide a steady and therefore if there is an ability for a state and there is this issue of the war being used force that therefore but it's still an investor state arbitration case like this case it's the same arbitration it's just administered by a different one so what we would suggest because it's never been litigated before as far as we know is because this is an keep cases from awards from coming in and coming in piecemeal and that can be done and it makes it arbitration in the same way that it can be done in this berkowitz the republican comes to reagan case where court where there's a question of st impression such as this cleared up this completely arbitrary approach enforcement not when that gets in force it's up to this court to decide how the how this court should be run in terms of allowing piecemeal awards to come in but what i'm trying to understand is i'm sure you know better than i you know the legislative history of the exit was this was supposed to be fast it wasn't supposed to drag on for years so that while the convention starts out by defining the word award as all the questions present to it then when it comes to it's a discussion of enforcement it redefine what is an award for purposes of enforcement and so that's what got me started on i mean it's interesting your counsel for the courts here in this argument as opposed to counsel for your client because i was thinking of from your client's perspective that ins it does offer a way to avoid or at least to request that an award not take effect immediately so who are your clients successful and that's where judge letts question is is key and you think well it's a matter of equity and we don't know we don't have a pattern here yet from the exact practice for the courts to have this process and you can come to the courts like you can under the new york convention and under the federal arbitration act and raise all these issues there's a award you have to give full faith and credit to an end of discussion but it doesn't say you argue that the court can't decide as a matter of its own control over its dock when it's going to consider the application foreign force meant it could just hold it in a benz arguably for years while the matter is litigated back and forth yes and i think it should be you know the x in system is what it is in the in the part it's hard to use that phrase but the existing is what it is then and the claimants have the option of choosing different systems they decide to choose the exit system the we should in my view clients view wait until there is a final determination of the dispute when you look at the complete arbitration rule and i can give you his authority on this it talks about the dispute if we had a state court judgment that a party was seeking to have the district court here in force and under the state law it was a final judgment in forcible in that state just under my hypothetical how could this court say well we want to wait until all the appeals are solved and everything because we don't think it's a final enforceable judgment or final and forcible order get would say i don't know that of a situation like that but just to use that as a hypothetical full faith and credit also does not require an instant  know does not allow for instant enforcement necessarily of the state court decision the other thing that i would read i'm getting at is and the district court explored this to some extent y controls where we're talking about the enforcement of a judgment of a state all right and it's sort of that hands off approach and just because other things involving the parties are still going on in the state full faith and credit says we don't look behind what the state has said is a final the difference in this case is that a state court judgment plate of judgment from florida i could go to florida in and have pretty you know have mechanisms to be able to challenge that decision in judgment from a state court and so that's why i didn't understand your role sixty me argument because we would never in applying full faith and credit rely on will sixty be a right it would only be subject to  greater i think that's correct the difference here is that state courts have mechanisms by which this can be challenged if you so who want what does rule six the is to have an equitable provision to be able to get relief from a judgment when needed and when the exit system does not have those mechanisms by which you can bring i after one hundred and twenty days unless it's corruption even after three years so just a hypothetical on my end if i may as are you treat as i understand it your theory even under this argument in your discussion with is that your client had no ability to challenge the awards within the exhibit system and i discussion has been focused on well exhibit does give you this stay o at least to opportunity to request of stay and if you don't request to stay i don't know exhaustion type analogies but you haven't taken advantage of what is available to you and by analogy to your most recent discussion about will sixty be what you might be able to do in a state challenging a state court judgment so to hear the representing your client and what did your client get out of this by the courts adopting this procedure in your urge because my client who you knew could be before this court holdings to bring in for thinking reports and actually should not be brought in the unique factual circumstances which is different than other functions circumstances we think it should not have been brought into the arbitration was complete it continues to go on it will go certainly on on kos and there was the presale interests and both of those applied to the historical loss claim not just the the lost value claim that was being adjudicated for the st time b the nd tribunals so that seems to me and that's history much more relevant substantively the that the total recovery for the historical loss claim has as of now not been resolved on historical losses continues to be litigated was litigated in that case is subject to a norm in could go on so even under this idea that there's two claims that there is a priest that there is a historical loss claim and a loss of value claim that the historical loss claim continues to be litigated in the nd arbitration along those lines it's not proper to state that this is two claims if you look at what happened in this in the d r chapter that was the claim that was brought somehow this turned into something with damage components being part of a claim and i would analogize this for example to contra claim where somebody comes in and says hey you breached my contract but went with regard to damages and what compensatory damages i want damages i want the money i paid refunded to me because you never delivered and i wa but it would be fine with that planet and i know the court knows this much better than i do but if i am here arguing from a client but there are you know this this court's decisions you know get researched and sp by lawyers like me all the time and it decision that says that you can get piecemeal or that you can continue to do or you know it could be subject because we don't know what's going to happen in the future and so there is a sense in which this court resources are better done but when when you have a unique case this case does not happen all the time where there is a partial in a moment and it continues to go on the same party same case number two in both the complete arbitration rule so the so it's not the case necessarily that these things become public it's not typical for the final awards to be public although that's not always done either but it's more typical to the final you know when you have a final resolution to be those decisions should be after a short period of time be made available because it's part of the archive so in this particular situation there would be more transparency ok and as they are have to have any and the lack of finality just on the historic loss claims because that has not been resolved they are still litigating interests part of the decision that was sent off to the nd tri included in the pre a presale interest for the historic loss claims and you've also got this interest on costs claim which but put aside the whole lot of value as a pretend it's not there touching the determination of guatemala's liability that's a not an old for lack of a better heard provision liability not touching it that's good to go but we've got to have a whole new proceeding on on the record for purposes of other proceedings or ongoing behavior in guatemala you want to get on the record as final as they were liable for this so they wouldn't keep repeating the problem but their damages haven't been obligation in the word ok was not i simply wouldn't have any peculiarity obligations ok so what if they said all right we're going to decide half of the damages claims but the other half have to go back you see and that's that's key here because it has no rebound procedure and that's where i go where i knowing the initial tribunals decision on eighty percent of its damages determination but twenty percent of his damages determination were not a no and were not touching that so now what we have is a liability decision but only expressly only twenty per cent of damages and eighty percent of damages are still being fought over let's imagine that's the decision from the an element committee ok arbitration or not she could have chosen for instance maybe it got a nd opinion that determined that how do you reckon what if what if maybe after anonymous they said liability and this damages award is a mess we're sure you're entitled to at least one dollar but probably millions of dollars but for now we're going to hold that we're not going to an all liability or one dollar worth of damages but should i go back and fight about the extra three hundred million dollars in damages really you can come to a court and make us do forstmann for that one dollar you know i'm going to have to do it all over again i think technically one could whether one would for one dollar is another question how would you how  close the case it wasn't opened if it would not have had to do an on line it's a clear link to if you didn't pursue the nd tribunals any would be done you wouldn't have any opportunity to get more relief you wouldn't be determining other claims that could actually offset against the initial claim it would just you'd both be down and walking away that's quite different from we're going to keep fighting about how much damages they owe but again it is like a nd arbitration where we are seeking was decided all right so so you would get three quarters of what you asked for but you decided your your client decided it wanted to get one hundred percent of what it is for so then i understood you to say well we can come into court because an article fifty three an award is redefined for purposes of recognition and foresman that's correct judge rogers because in five hundred and thirty one it indicates that the word is binding and not subject to any other appeal and cetera and you can see can force lands in fifty three to it defines a board to include the and decision on a known injury vision or interpretation and so they still go ahead sorry and if so it still maintains its character as the final word and in fact or not is why if the nd award as just tells that it had no ability to change or anything that happened with the st word it can only give us an additional award and that one has been rendered as you know and that is pursuing she who article five hundred and fifty three where it's specifically says that a new trial be an all in every submitted away you're reading the convention as to article fifty three in fifty five and i suppose was before the core the federal district court has no ability you haven't argued this yet but has no authority to stay in the sense of holding in abeyance baby in the same case as council says the original claim like on a contract so now it just disputing forms of damages to which you're entitle and so you could come back on every dollar for millions of dollars yes the court has no ability and it's not contemplated that a court could hold matters in abeyance until it sees the final award no your honor the court's obligation under the convention is to enforce the q yairi obligations of the award and exit defines what is in a word this was labeled as an award to deal with all the questions parts of that were in no mood to believe after the are and what are that so they're very similar to the standards that courts look at so they look at the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim they look at the balance of interests of the parties whether one party will suggesting this is how you should look at whether you should grant but it's not as though two to your knowledge we have any guidance it's just a discretionary  screened by the individual your tribe you know that's correct your honor there is not it's not in the treaty itself or in the convention or in large force nothing in the rolls no your honor so just the rule just claims that were not in the old then what authority do they have to stand for shipment of those claims when it's like they have no authority but they have authority they still have jurisdiction over those very claims that seems odd i would think in this circumstance it wouldn't have made sense which is why guatemala didn't do it when i know i'm not asking the strategic decision not to seek a stay it's in the rule that in any case you can seek from the new tribunals if a new tribunals as it's called for a nominal provisions and that seems to me to suggest that they still have jurisdiction over those claims at least to the extent the ability to get a stay so that seems odd i united states a state court judgment do you know if a final state court judgment do you know if in deciding whether a state court judgment is final do we do we give full faith and credit to their decision that is final for example if you had a contract dispute and a state court did what exit is done here or my would dictate what was in my hypothetical if a state court said you win on liability for contract  and damages here incredibly complicated we're going to have to have another proceeding on damages d but i'm going to give you an interim award d of a one thousand dollars i know we're litigating millions here but whatever happens in a day or at least entitle to a thousand and so you have contract liability a one thousand dollars and now let's have a whole nother proceeding on the real contract damages here which are in the millions d of dollars and i'm declaring that st part liability and a one thousand dollars final do you know i just don't have any idea and full faith and credit for finality is normally an argument you can bring to challenge the application of full faith and credit when we defer to the states well it's a state law consider that when a federal court in determining the precludes of the fact of a state court judgment look to the rendering court the state court to see it considers that judgments have precluded of a fact and so in the same way i would but the governing mind the arbitration was international law and there is an international law of rescue to kata which actually is very similar to the law in the us so they look to an identity of the parties and then to see if the cause of have thought maybe porton thing is that they were a lack of jurisdiction seem to turn on the fact that they were presenting claims under god a mile off and they didn't find your essex no one claim that seemed to implicate international law reasoning of you know a six circuit decision i would say it's not binding on you it's not stories like this but i find amusing you see very persuasive if you want to come out the same way and what obama talked about the vitriol the word we had an entire round of briefing on it and the southern district of new york there that was under the six additional facility rules so it was a new york convention essay review but there or it found that the kirghiz republic could not inherent this is what counsel is arguing for to claim court's inherent authority to state cases is limited by the exits determination to live to say because in the three cases that i'm talking about exit had it lifted have had a court continued or gave a stay so i don't think there was a discussion of having no authority and you know that this court had no authority to prevent the enforcement based on what the except rules were the accept convention and i just don't think that can be correct because this court has to decide for itself what it's not a question and say it is going to so important is not a question of whether or not an award can ever be enforced it's whether or not it's fin lead case was the root of the respondent and i represented the claim that the case called for import the philippines there was an argument made for example in the in the no matter an argument over whether you can be punishable for a crime without law that was not made in in the in the case in chief i just there is no rule it's on a case by case basis and i think there are examples where panel hearing the matter right the parent has the discretion there's no rule that's conceded by this you cancel the pain or has the discretion all right thank you counsel well take the case under advisement thank you