could also include in mr and mrs even and we believe the district court's decision and orders should be reversed as to all d appellants however we believe the clear t case for reversal is as to the alamo group since there is obviously no domestic taking issue there the alamo group was and is a located in kiev ukraine the alamo group had offices there in ukraine justice lutes express had offices in atlanta georgia  alamo group's offices there and in addition the alamo group maintained in the ukraine property certain automobiles auto parts and other inventory of international law not only because they were uncompensated but it was in direct violation of a bilateral treaty be train ukraine and the united  states whereby alamo group and other u s companies were induced or reassured to do business in ukraine that there would be a judicial remedy available to them in the recourse to the courts of a party to the treaty ukraine or the u s and in this particular case alamo group as well as the crane defendants we did not have adequate recourse in the ukraine courts because at this particular time both the courts and the government were controlled by a pro russian and tell us an anti western europe european government that discriminated against us companies and the judicial system the rule of law was grant at that particular time since the courts were as well as the government was subject to rampant corruption and political influence on the judicial system was so the taking here for purposes of the commercial exception effort was not as the district court found iran asleep found unfortunately that the taking was for a public purpose the construction of a bridge however as we argued in our minds as well as in our our papers while the ostensible purpose was for the building of a bridge this was a subterfuge  and indeed a bridge was never built that was a subterfuge for commercial purposes namely the taking of the property and its use for for profit commercial activity sports a sports arena for the personal benefit of some of the individual defendants the taking here of the alamo group's property express which maintain an office in georgia and had to close that after the destruction of its property in the crane the alamo group  had and was in essence the controlling party of the crane company lutes expressed through various loans and financial arrangements which of course looks express could no longer f obligations and that's led to a devastating cascading effect on alamo group which had significant lines of credit secured by property in the united states and that was  its business was virtually destroyed the lion's share of its business was with this ukraine operation which was completely destroyed and the product and the inventory taken in july two thousand i would would like to point out that the defendant here ukraine of course takes the business in that this was a domestic taking it can apply that argument to the alamo group but it applies it to links expressing the individual defendants however we would point out that we believe the only way that the bilateral treaty can have any teeth or any impact would be for alamo group to have a judicial remedy and also that lets express and the individual presidential decree in two thousand and sixteen saying that it looks express any even one kind of individual plaintiffs would be considered as foreign entities for purpose s of this litigation which they have pending at pending and the u s district court and ukraine argues well we call them foreign entities or are foreign person for purposes of this litigation so that the ministry of justice could defend the case but for all our other purposes they are ukrainian plaintiffs we would argue that the government cannot have it both ways that when activities exception of course is green court more recently has cut back this court in terms of exceptions any comment you want to make  case we never argued that this was a human rights case we argued that it was strictly a property so certainly were alive and well i think under philipson and simon in that respect the taking of the property  should only be viewed under the lens of property law and in this particular case if you look at both the exceptions under the commercial  taking the commercial activity in the taking section we believe that we fall within both those exceptions as i indicated under the commercial activity and i think this is an important point which the district court kind of missed and the crane has really picked up on not improperly well the land itself may have been owned by the city agency the korean government that had been tasked to operate this particular land and indeed to negotiate with the defendants over compensation they actually arri an agreement for compensation but those monies were promptly stolen from the prime treasury by individual the fund and son was no longer available so it was clearly the commercial activity both before and after the taking it was an automobile dealership before after it was in use for a public purpose the building of a bridge the  the bridge never happened at least with regard to this property what it was used for was a sports for say for profit commercial sports well why don't we hear from counsel for  taking in violation of international law and that property has a certain nexus to the united states be it melons who allegedly suffered a taking of their leasehold and the destruction of their property recognized an exception to the domestic takings rule for takings and into genocide and how it's made the argument that this genocide exception would be expanded to encompass discriminatory takings and argued that this was somehow  discriminatory taking as judge rogers alluded to during appellants argument that entire basis was for close to the federal republic of germany well it's case where the supreme international law if all of the assets of its wholly owned were incorporated subsidiary or road at least seized by a foreign government problem with this argument isn't the law it's united states in order to trigger the expropriation exception the property has to be either easier in this country or owned and operated by an agency or instrumentality the foreign state that is engaged in a commercial activity that computers auto parts not the ils may have been destroyed by some part of the ukrainian government well if that's the case that it can't be owner operated by some state owned company because they no longer exist in his opening mentality we don't have allegations supporting the suggestion that it opens or operates and he allegedly you take in the automobiles or anything else but most importantly there are no allegations anywhere in the complaint that the southwestern and then we have a mere financial loss with american party which doesn't qualify as a matter of law as a direct effect in the united states of mind also repellents also sort of brought the opera to you the application of the bilateral bilateral investment treating gives foreign direct investors a right to pursue their claims or patrician and that is the point of that treaty it does give agreed investors the right to contemplate claims being filed against the state in foreign courts by ukrainians and so there was no part of the ukrainian government that was authorized to you know hire townsell to mount a defense to that sort of unusual  hers was just completely blunderbuss to nature he had asked for leave to propound discovery quests proving all of the economic ties between the united states and ukraine obviously hunting for any possible jurisdiction hook and it was directly denied the court did not abuse its discretion in denying that at request repeat thank you very much your honor thank you counsel for the talent give you a couple of minutes throughout this litigation in addition to the taking of the leases which was the loops expressed loss primarily alamo mo group as counsel i think  automobiles auto parts and accessories which were stolen by the defendants i don't immediately see the reference to the complaint but this is from the affidavit if i could supplement the record i will go through the complaint and get that are shelling proceed the taking of the alamo groups property clearly outside the domestic taking falls within both the commercial activity exception and the takings exception under the commercial activity it had a direct effect on the united states the transactions were in dollars between the parties it impacted the federal reserve system and it devastated alamo after the district court decision had been rendered and we were in an appellate context it came to our attention and we put it into our  continuing course of conduct or it can be a single act and we would argue ready that not we have established through the public record here that purchased by southwestern railway so the focus here is not so much on the leases itself which would be part of the claim of lucic expressed but on the taking of the personal property of alamo group which itself suffered damages not to rivet of damages we believe that the court there is no claim here of genocide as council says and clearly where within the scope of philips with regard to a property damage exception and phillips was remanded for further consideration as to the nationality which we believe this an open issue here and we would respectfully request that the matter be remanded for further proceedings so that in fact council which has not which is that appellant which has set forth a good faith basis now of a commercial activity by southwestern railway which st became publicly aware of that while we were on appeal here that the matter should be remanded we did not sit on our rights we raised it