from i guess it depends on your definition of the word is you know not i don't like i don't want to get to that we didn't or we didn't arbitrate the case in london because you viable claim because you don't want to own a gun threat anymore that's exactly what you're arguing here that the chosen action was divided assignment proceeds divided and therefore because you don't give up i think but that's more far afield from what we're talking about here so i think that's the kind of thing that would call for more specific language to be honest with you i think we've be and so the answer to your combined questions is that the m p has lost on that issue in the arbitration they can never go back to the arbitration that's done that resulted in an award that award has been confirmed by the district cases the courts concluded that they were and that there was certainly no reason not to have them go after arbitration and especially in light of the strong always strong federal policy in favor of arbitration th that arises under or is in connection with the contract of a frame and there's a direct link that you go to the next step is we invoked nine u s c section eight that provision in the federal arbitration a says you can come to the united states district court and you can invoke the powers of that court to reach out of thin security for a claim in arbitration that's exactly what we did claim an arbitration and so that attachment is in connection with the contract of the freight and directly favor of arbitration there's a strong federal policy particularly in the international arena which is what's involved here under supreme court precedent that favors arbitration the case is that the end few relies arbitration and so certainly in connection with this the very same arbitration clause that caused the arbitration to be started in the first place and so just last week made no mistake when he said i looked at these other federal district courts decisions that we cited here's what's here's what can happen here's i'll just put different faces on it if i have a promissory note with a four creditor with an arbitration clause in cause of them which is a treaty country they can file the arbitration there come here convince a judge to get a prejudgment seizure of all of my money then in aid of collection burn my house down commits a tort and then when i try to sue them here they get orders stane my claim for burning my house down arbitration case and the contract of a fragment even even with what happened they were still able to convince the arbitration court that the earth the amount of the claims is exactly what we said it was the three million dollars that was the we have a million dollars playing against the million dollar assets this is your preference for every other creditor you wiped out the assets and in fact like what happened here getting the original the cash and can trigger all these other claims and that's the issue we would like to try t it's it's almost everybody it's almost everybody can come in here and force anyone who signs on to that to go wherever they need to go and that's fine in the first instance if you sign onto it but when you couple the ability to use our seizure laws to