last one of those bill arbitration and this court ruled that the cons claims regarding the investment strategy and all of its positive actions a breach of contract were not operable they went back to the court relief in the alternative relief they sought that the court stayed discovery until p t o filed the motion to dismiss so in our opinion the alternative really is appropriate under rule to a one and the burden of proof is on the a t o in this case and what the what the sort of court found and this is important circuit court battle back the arbitration would not as part of our reasoning for why it will not eliminate the the trial court cases this court you go back to the motion compel arbitration order or this court rule wise was that the exclusive is expressly excluded from the contract and so under the arbitration we've got a contract in a court case we've got positive action and conduct that are completely unrelated the arbitration will have no effect on the court case because in the court case the contracts not even relevant likewise the arbitration the cause of action and the conduct regarding investment exercise of this discretion in this case would require that the arbitration completely eliminate the court case and so with respect to the back part of the ruling  case is because the issues that are before the supreme court in grant court appeal will not have been here impact on the claims against b t o the statue or pose are with respect to the there's no ruling that the supreme court in may that will eliminate or dispose of them in the court case so for those reasons we believe that the order issue and here judge and also the question is was the judge controlling his own docket or doing something that's going to affect the parties outside of the litigation and here the judge was squarely within doing knows this is a very hard court complex case involves bob given transactions tens of millions of dollars many subtle questions of tax law privilege issues fifth amendment issues  it is probably one of the four year cases on judge ford stock and he looked at the case and he looked at considerations additional kind of me and say i think that i can make my life and this court systems life a lot easier by staying and he was right for both the three five nine appeal if we could conjure claim is very broad the breach of contract claim says in essence that my clients i told mr khan that he was entering into legitimate tax investment and they can supervise at discovery so that's all going to happen so i think it was the proper approach for sitting with this case in front of them this complexity as you know before too long is out we're going to have you know four published appellate opinions this time next year in this case work for me the parties are going to pay for these arbitrators they're going to be x judges or seasoned litigators and i'll have those arbitrators resolved some of these questions and then come back to me and the case will be wrapped up in a nice little ribbon discovery will be mostly first ball with respect to jurisdiction i think the case law is very clear that when judge porch state the entire case that's considered injunctive order that the cons can appeal at this point easier and there's no evidence that that's the case or the case law that supports that position here if judge orders had in or an order with respect to the alternative really it said we're going to stay the cases in a case that this court has told the trial court will be in court that we need to do all of our discovery for that case in arbitration and that's not the way it works we did issues that they were raised with having simultaneous proceedings is that the cons may somehow bypass that limitation in arbitration through the proceed so all this talk about you know the