several cases involving the own w bunker bankruptcy and has ruled on the availability of maritime lien in favor of a bunker supplier when intermediaries like o w bunker were involved in the transaction and yes this case doesn't involve o w bunker but this is not one of those o w bunker type cases the current case concerns whether the dollars to that vessel we've never been paid and we took certain steps to collect that money and so that's what the court addressed here and addressed what happened in single poor as part of our efforts we just start with the should examine its decision in the guaranty case on subject matter jurisdiction that was the issue i was bringing up is that implying that that case pretty much decides the jurisdictional question here unless we re examine yes that's correct so our brief began on the jurisdictional on the strike threshold question of subject matter jurisdiction and we suggested that the court should we examine the garand second circuit decision for two reasons one is that guarantee says that one should look at what the party opposing declaratory judgment would have been able to do in a call worse of suit and if that suit would support federal subject matter jurisdiction then the declaratory judgment plaintiff has can rely on subject federal subject matter jurisdiction we argue that our case never involved a coercive suit we never had a coercive suit using the language of the guarantee court available all we had was an arbitrary claim that sounds in maritime distinction that i think this that brings us outside of the square holding of the guaranteed situation the nd thing is and this court recognized that in guarantee there is a facial illogic to having a declaratory judgment plaintiff found the contract subject matter jurisdiction on a contract that it actually disavows and so we have said and argued in our brief that in the cases such as this very one where the appellee says there's no such contract it seems illogical even looking at the maritime contract and that's a basis for subject matter jurisdiction and that's what you're a nice i guess i'm just not understanding what's illogical about doing our usual practice of reversing the party's position on apply in a circumstance where plaintiff where the declaratory judgment plaintive disavows the underlying contract then we cited for example the nasdaq's nd circuit case where that issue came up but there was no issue about the existence of a argued multiple times that when we went to singapore in this case we did so only to invoke the provisional remedy of ayn rand arrest to secure or in person on him or but your claim pore courts ruled ultimately was that that action could not survive under singapore law and applying the single paul law of agency so it said no agency was relationship was formed such that a party with authority to bind the vessel balun the vessel they threw out are in ram action after multiple hearings even up to the court of appeal ultimately on this case but  singapore court of appeals in this is a key point said in affirming the lower court's dismissal of you in ram action are we stressed that our view in this regard is not intended to be a comment on the viability of the plaintiffs claim my client's claim an arbitration proceedings overseas and we view that is really as an express carve out of what this the singapore courts and bottom our position on comedy is that yes we accept that district courts under principles of comedy may recognise foreign judgments no dispute on that point but we think that district court went to moving on to judicial stop we don't see that our position that we took with the district court in two thousand and fifteen was indeed ultimately inconsistent because we always argued that our in person on claim ought to be heard here in new york pursuant to new york arbitration clause and i just go back to the question of how the that last line in the opinion of the singapore court i mean i read that as a statement of modesty on the part of the singaporean court to simply say far be it from us to tell some other court in some other country how their preclusion rules work you know we'll decide our case you know you're going to new york or london whatever they'll decide their choice and they'll figure it out but be wrong figured out for for itself whether comedy should be granted and under normal principles he granted what's wrong with that i guess isn't that their reading and why are we focusing on that last line of the singapore you court judges are to the point you're reading and certainly that is available construction route of that love that man wage but keep in mind that at that point in time an arbitration had already been commenced in new york there was a panel formed the district court was aware of that proceeding already she stayed the judge stayed the new york proceedings on judicial review the grounds  grounds and let's not waste our time here was inciting so i think the district court and the court of appeal understood that that was an ongoing proceeding now the question for the district were to have decided was ok i've got the ruling in singapore should i allow this impersonal claim to go forward and that really involved a section for any issue upon one party come to demands arbitration the other party disputes arbitration what happens in that case either the judge decides that or we have a hearing or the parties fall computing summary judgment motions but the district court did neither of those it but singapore court did address the issue as to whether there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties right they were looking at it more in the car the arbitration was not a important issue in the singapore proceedings judge sullivan that what was important to them was the question of agency that's what the decision and that's what we for if you look at our brief we cite several points in our brief and which the sort of the head notes of the singapore decisions are emphasized and they all deal with the question of agency specifically whether this intermediate o w entity  acting as an agent for the ship owner which received the bunkers and that's what the case turned on we the panel and we're trying to impose or the general i think i'm reading from the appendix a contract formation question those facts included pre fuelling communications between my client and the ship owner prefuse ling instructions going back and forth between the parties a bunker receipt signed by the ship's ari i'm going to interrupt you for a nd because i hear you arguing i think now in response to john sullivan's question which was was the issue decide i did but i think you're now arguing it may have been decided our claim during ordaining was not decided in the singapore proceedings to answer your question directly what was decided was whether in the end graham action could proceed to secure or impersonal claim in new york on the basis of an agency theory on singapore law and if there is no agency there's no agreement and if there is no agreement there is no arbitration right that's correct without the citing one flow from the other now that certainly without the citing other facts that would have led a trier of fact say in a section four hearing to conclude that a contract was in the form of you saying they're wrong you say they didn't that wrong i'm not saying they're wrong i'm saying they didn't look at those facts right ok so you're saying they decided it necessarily implicitly or logically but they ought not to have because had they looked at more facts it would have come out the other way and that the and those precise yes that's correct and those facts would indeed have been would have  argument that's not an argument that says the issue wasn't necessarily adjudicated in singapore it's saying it may have been adjudicated in singapore but it was done so in a way that was unfair according to whatever standard that now and therefore ought not to be a corded comedy that seems to me to be a very different argument from saying they didn't decide it and just saying they did decide it but they did a bad job of it and we should have no respect for it well i think what we're saying is that the scope what i'm saying judge is that the district court action here we didn't the time frame of course was not what you told judge torres was that singapore was going to resolve it singapore is where it ought to be and one singapore decides there's nothing for you to decide judge towards entered a judgment and favor one party with that party subsequently going back to the court and taking a can see a completely inconsistent because we never judge torres never entered a judgment she simply stayed the action on traditional economy grounds and as we stress the district court ultimately did not rule on the question of the courts did not alternately rule on that question and indeed as we've known have carved out the last known that you are meaning what you really were saying their part mean you should have known that you didn't really mean what you were saying when you told them that the singapore court was going to resolve this issue well i wasn't me that uttered the words to her was par counsel but i think what was happening in singapore was not possible to be discerned at that point in time we didn't know the scope of what would happen in singapore obviously two years prior to the proceedings over there keep in mind  just something that we actually moved to stay the singapore proceedings immediately we wanted to get our end ram security as is provided and then we moved to stay the singapore we didn't want to proceed with a full blown hearing good morning your honour's gina venetia here for china shipping the district court committed no era and certainly no abuse of discretion which is the appropriate standard when the district court recognize the decisions of the singapore an agency theory was because that was the only legal theory advanced by big port in support of its argument that big and my client had a contract the only theory council here said well there was additional evidence that they should they didn't consider and he referred to supplied correspondence he referred to a bunker delivery note that was considered in singapore was submitted in singapore and if you look at the made in singapore and he also explained to the district court how the matters progressed in singapore now contrary to his declaration we hear nothing from bayport singapore counsel nothing and that's telling you don't hear anything from big court singapore council because many things that we just said to your honor's is simply not true agency was considered that was you know the full legal theory advanced the evidence at the site it was considered now the notion that the singapore case was limited to an in ram action only for security is false and i'm going to tell you why counsel says that because it wants to lead this court with the impression that an enron perceiving in singapore is similar to an enron proceeding over here in the united states as your honour's may know that in the united states in one proceeding is a very particular type of proceeding it's a case where the defendant is the vessel and it's a case where there is a claim against the that was no in ram proceeding the defended in the case in singapore was the ship owner the claim in singapore was that name persona contract claim it was a money down just playing in persona against the ship owner now china shipping had to pose a security because right they they start security that complaint again a forty four dollars of a five hundred and forty four to a five hundred and forty eight read it doesn't reference arbitration doesn't reference security it was after big port had initiated the case in singapore after we had posted security after we had said there's no agreement between the parties i mean after that once they got the security then they demand arbitration then they go to the singapore court and say wait hold up hold up hold up we don't really want to litigate here we're asking you to direct them to arbitration at that point in time my client had already peered in singapore and had taken the position not only do i not have an arbitration agreement with big port i have no contract whatsoever meanwhile big point though continues to advance over here in the states it appoints an arbitrator and appoints a nd arbitrator they appoint a rd arbitrator those are the traders set hearings in arbitration meanwhile the party's a litigator singapore we were compelled to come here to stop that arbitration because the singapore courts to your point your honor we're not going to tell a new york panel that it be convenient to stop so we came here we come here and we tell them ask the district court for an injunction preventing them from proceeding with the arbitration what are they do they gone from the district court and i say a couple of things you've already pointed out this they say to the district court the issue of arbitration is before the singapore court directly contrary to what we hear today they tell the district court singapore is the proper venue for the dispute they tell the singer they tell the district court singapore undisputedly has jurisdiction over the parties and then they tell the district court beat big port is going to abide by the result and singapore of singapore says no arbitration agreement no harm no foul to china shipping we won't force an attempt to proceed to arbitration so the parties continue on in singapore  singapore was limited not true the sole issues in singapore were is there a contract between the parties and if and the big port agreed to the singapore court if you decide singapore court that there is no agreement i mean scheme no contract between the parties it follows that there's no arbitration agreement big court agreed to just to the singapore court that that was the issue they were to decide big court loses at the corner st instance big loses at the that the appellate level on both their application took to force us to arbitration and also our application just write the complaint call it the complain just be easier our application in singapore to strike the complaint on the basis there's no agreement between the parties they lose both of those and lose it at the corner st instance they lose it at the appellate level now the way appeals work in singapore is once you lose at that a same over here we'd have to ask iran as for permission of the supreme court before asking permission to the supreme court so big request permission at the high court the appellate division so to speak of the high court i would like permission to appeal the ruling on the arbitration application and also on their china shipman's application just write the complaint that permission was denied at the high court level so then the next step is you go to the highest court and ask for permission there will be import went to that next step it only asked for permission to appeal the arbitration ruling the court of appeal said no later after the time had expired big pork goes to the court of appeal and ask the court of appeal for permission to appeal out of time the decision by the singapore court to strike their complaint on the basis that there was no evidence of an agreement between the forth the appearance of the attorneys in front of the court of appeal when they were or when big point was seeking permission to appeal out of time the decision striking out the complaint and it was in that context that the co appeal made the statement that their decision not to grant big port leave was not a comment on the viability of the overseas overcharging proceedings are singapore charlie who was present at that hearing exactly the point that your honor raise this court of appeal was simply saying we're not going to intrude on whether that body should decide whether to give effect to our judgments or not it's not our province that's  reason why we had filed in a declaratory judgment because the singapore courts are not going to intrude on the process they leave it to the foreign body to make the assessment of what impact if any they're willing to have and that is precisely with the parties here contemplated that is why it's the case we're stayed for two years that is why the parties repeatedly kept know to find that just report this is what's happening in singapore and this is what's happening in singapore because what was happening in singapore was precisely the issue that was before the district court here and the parties agreed with no it's do get out in singapore and then there'll be an assessment of what the impact of that is the description that you heard today is simply not  i would like to say one quick point though about this subject matter jurisdiction i think counsel correctly conceded that grantee answers the question and unless there is a reason to revisit karate there should there's no question that subject matter jurisdiction now he suggests that karate should be revisited but we never quite hear why we never quite hear why why is it unfair to apply karate counsel says well this is different because i never had a claim i was going to pursue in federal court that exactly the same fact pattern in karate arantes on all fours karate involved a bunker supplier trying to drag a shipowner into arbitration on the basis of an alleged contract between the rd party in the bunker supplier it was the exact same pattern council says the mirror principle should apply don't doesn't really ever say why in the papers we have all this a maritime case i submit to you that because this is a maritime case that's precisely why the mirror principle applies here even our founding fathers recognize that maritime matters maritime issues rest with the federal courts and the reason why is because it's international in there's a need for uniformity and so i submit to you in this case you have a foreign ship owner a foreign flag vessel a foreign supply a foreign bunker supplier and to suggest that that foreign ship owner who is being dragged in singapore in the us on a contract with a bunker supplier that ship on a maintains does not exist to suggest that that foreign ship owner is to go to state court is quite if that issue is decided in singapore squarely then will abide by it but that issue wasn't squarely decided by the singapore courts at least in your view it was and and terms of the carve out by the court of appeals only they know precisely what they meant but i think at a minimum it meant that the question of orbiter ability ought to be looked at a new or at least was valuable to the district court to be looked at a new  court had this court has held that a court does have that power where the court has determined that a valid arbitration agreement does not exist here the district court made no such finding she said proceeded to issue a permanent final and junction without making an independent finding as to the existence which we have argued throughout she should have done under section four and this being a prominent injunction she really needed to make a finding the court a district court of a clear showing that it was and that the pollie was entitle to a permanent injunction and respectfully we don't think the district court the district failed to make that necessary clear showing so for these reasons we last case on the calendar for this morning so