is inconsistent with the federal rules and the all writs act starting with the federal rules rule sixty nine in particular rule sixty nine directs courts for enforcement to look to state law there is no state law provision that says you can make life miserable a district court was driven to that injunction drew them to the steps that it took which would measure the fact that you just dug a hand you refuse to contribute voluntarily a penny toward the satisfaction of the north carolina judgment and the district court that was to give you the opportunity to continue in your business and to collect the revenues at least some of wage i thought were going to be put to the satisfaction of the north carolina judge not and i feel like that we gave you that latitude and it was abuse and instead of using the revenues to satisfy even in part of north carolina judge we are getting everything possible to avoid contributing opinion your honor st we've offered twice now to place all us collections into a lock court and the execution of the judgment recovers a dollar from your client today and they get to keep that dollar until they have to give zero dollars sixty seven cents back so the decree that which is there the p t i judgment english course is that for every dollar collected in the united states the non compensatory portion two thirds is going to be repaid but that isn't judgment in some forcible is it your position that you could go into the to the district court up here in richmond in a sort of claim for that sixty seven dollars service absolutely not and that's actually a critical point that the english judgment if we went to the united states and asked a court in the united states recognize that which judge united states courts would be well within their their discretion to say no that's contrary to our rules we're not actually going to respect their judgment we will not recognize this court previously declined to recognize and respect of english judgment tick nothing touch on the same claims in this case but that doesn't mean that the court can turn around and for example try and foreclose the operation of english law in didn't really have any of them have any would pay the compensatory problem is your view completely alters the nature of the earlier judgment and it completely nullifies a portion of north carolina law i mean i'm no great fan of the unfair trade practices act with north carolina has it it's part of the law and we have earlier that the u k judgment was preclude of the north carolina lawsuit to the north carolina lawsuit could proceed and now it seems to me we really litigate now and saying well it is pretty even certain in in certain respects but what you're suggesting completely alters the nature of the judgment and it seems to me a completely nullifies north carolina law let me start with the collateral talk notion that somehow that the english courses the english court rest independently on the notion that the u s judgment is not enforceable in england because it's contrary t software the software directive the pro competitive and pro expression and body image of english law that grounds for not enforcing us just isn't challenged no one's saying that there's that wasn't around  k assets no you run to the district court these are nine u k receivables so if the judge you were that you were going to park in the united kingdom i think the district court did not find that we moved any  ask this that judgement to be recognised in australia and so open question whether australia law is going to australian law is going to recognise the english judgment but the fact of the matter is that the english court hasn't recognized the judgment but in the u just into the middle of the night circuit proceedings which were were going to result of the amount of turn oh there was going to be devoted to satisfaction of dissolve and it said so and the effect on the th circuit i think the answer for that actually is it's up to the night circuit to decide how it's going to respond that you could have proceeded with britain which is what we said it should do it could get any of that money in the united states we cannot is it your position that you're entitled to then return to england and get a judgment against a say yes sixty seven  i think does boil down to the question of whether a foreign company chooses to do business in the united states and has to abide by u s laws to kill or like judgments against it's critical to sort of go back to the beginning and recognize two things i think st explicitly subjected itself to u s jurisdiction they filed a consent to jurisdiction with the trial court after initially contesting jurisdiction saying that at this stage of our business we don't think that we can on their words were on a commercial basis stay out of the united states they fully chose to participate in the underlying case and it's critical i think to note that the underlying case asserted only us claims the damages in the underlying case were based soley on last us customers of science and the lost profits flowing from if if we're to sort of take a variation judge e g on your question of what happens when sasco is to state court in virginia in chains under dollars another way to think about this would be to say if this were not a u k company in other words if this were a company from any of the forty nine american states other than north carolina what would happen in the circumstances in which is seventy nine million judgment was attained against sec company well for starters under the constitution obviously the banality of all times the american judge us it would be an affront to north carolina law it would be an affront to the exercise federal jurisdiction it would be a frog to own really sovereignty interest in this country of being able to exert some minimal regulation over those who do business with him within his country say thank you and write their own rules and it also itself on the mercy of the core or the child who kills its parents and throws a sup on the mercy of the court as an orphan because if you're on a pointed out what happened here is sas followed the rule sixty nine procedures in california sa went to court it got an order they didn't like the order they appealed to the th circuit as was their right but then this injunction comes in and stops us dead in our tracks in california we were directed by u were directed by u k court on that literally when we were an hour away from filing a reply brief we got an injunction from a court in london december twenty one two thousand and eighteen don't file that reply brief we got part that injunction said you must move to stay the motions pending for the indicative rulings in california so it's one thing to say follow rule sixty nine dollars and it's another to say well when we don't like what's happening in the enforcement proceeding in california we're going to essentially use our status as a ward of the u k courts to to get a u k court to tell sas what it can and cannot do to collect us revenues in a u s court on a u s judgment based on u s client and i guess that can't possibly that can't possibly be correct i basically judicial affairs oh i'm not bringing them to a complete in the media is right and can you imagine the impact cumulatively upon international relations if if if one nation is just interrupting the judicial proceedings of a nomination for a judgment of change in that of a nation under half of the nation's law and trying to maintain the integrity of its judicial system i mean it would it would lead to all kinds of aggravation intention and  principle should be let loose i think that's right right and i think that really place back into what the district court did here because the district court i think was was very sensitive to those considerations and so her by the territory of the u s and it basically says two things until you pay that judgment you don't get to have new customers in the well you know you've collected seven billion dollars what what's not said though and this is i think really extraordinary and i think that this is certainly borne out in the transcript of the hearings below what the district court found to be move to stay execution they said we can't post the full amount of the ball in judge judge flanagan went through the standard inquiry and basically said well you know what can you do by way of providing security and it was determined ultimately that a bond of about two million one hundred thousand dollars plus the establishment of an escrow flowing from us revenues would afford the security that would stop execution in the st instance while this that even those amounts the amounts that allowed them to come here with the state execution of two thousand and seventeen are subject to the clause and that's just not right and that but that's what they did they perce up to a certain point in time and i believe it's about the middle of last year have been reduced to a judgment in the u k representing two thirds of those amounts collected soley in the us as to try to taint those falls your honor and the reason is because of the anti clawback injunction issued in this case so the only thing that is stopping science from having to pay those amounts is the anti clawback injunction that says to them look which amounts collected on a us judgement in the us you don't get to claw those back now there is a certain asymmetry in what the courts can and can't do because of the nature of the party suit sas which is a larger company how significant an operations in the u k and this is in the record many employees bank accounts operations in the u true though with w p l in the us because w p l has no operations has no assets here it essentially ships in its software electronically doesn't come in on a container and it's there's nothing to seize and and so there's a real asymmetry in terms of what a court she can and can't do these are these parties in the different jurisdictions and so judge flanagan really the only things that were available to her and if she if she has taken those to stay out which we're we're we're we're simply advisory or you know without without a fact i mean you could have just said well there's this judgment but it doesn't mean anything i mean if if if even yes is too much it makes judgments meaningless i think i think that's exactly right your honor and there's even a further sort of issue not only did she not only did was what was available to her such a you know small piece but what sas remember was prohibited from seeking a whole host of potential relief by furch of the u k injunction and so for example when she ordered the anti climax ruling that was explicitly relief that sas was not allowed on school and if you review of the transcript you will see that i had to stand mute with respect to the n t clawback really and in fact the only reason i'm even able to argue in favor of the n t clawback ruling here today is that the sufferance of these people who said that they would not report me to the u k who work for being in contempt of as judge flanagan entered here which limits itself to us customers us receivables within the territorial united states is really i think i want the minimal and maximal limit of in good faith efforts obeyed to comply i think that's exactly right that they would have precisely the same opportunities that sas had to go back to the district court if there are changed circumstances relates to something that we really haven't heard about which is the standard of review here and i just want to make make it clear that the standard of review both with respect to rule sixty six dollars and with respect to the  far i guess we're getting ready for a rd district court conducted two lengthy multi hour hearings took evidence at different times in january february and march written evidence from world programming and i think it would be very difficult and i don't think what programming really even tries very much to try to indicate that there is any thing that could properly be characterized as an abuse of discretion with respect to these rules the nd thing i want to make sure that we're clear are the circumstances that have happened since this warder was issued on march th now would be sassiest position that under an abuse of discretion standard the way to look at the district court's order would be to look at it at the point in time that it was issued but there have been additional developments particularly in the u k and those developments are just brought to the court's attention under rule twenty eight johnny things have gotten entirely on in force not the punitive are not the troubled part not the compensatory part it indicated final ruling that it's claw back ruling putting the claw back ruling that related to the og and security established i think they could come to richmond the st time that would stand and that would apply to all u s collections from one dollar one cent on december th court of appeals i mention affirm the lower court ruling that sas would not be able to appeal that on september  th the u k court issued an order indicating that its injunction at been improvidently granted but two days after that the same court said we are going to let you world programming appeal that you know while it's being appealed we're going to keep the injunction in place that were also told sas ordered them to pay just under five million dollars to the u s as part of the claw back including the security that was a stablished is interesting to know but i don't think it's our intention to jump into the u k judicial proceedings or to straighten out whatever disagreements exist between u the united states judgment within the united states and i don't want to put us in the box you're interfering with the judicial proceedings or commenting you know interfering with the judicial proceedings of the united kingdom but it's just a matter of protecting the integrity of our own we want our own and our own judgments and not having  a matter of international law and particularly in the face of the prior ruling of this court which was that the north carolina actually was not precluded think that's exactly correct that's w haven't heard yet anything that's just under rule sixty nine it's a viable permissible or authorized enforcement mechanism to say you may not do business in the united states until the judgment there is simply no provision that says pay the why that sort of injunction is a permissive th i'd like to talk about the california issue and the scope of the order that the english court issued saying that you couldn't go into this site is our turn over relief  but the reason it did was that count unique california procedure which doesn't prevent you from do with which is different from just seizing things in the united states would not have allowed sas to reach into england and force english company to do things in english to satisfy the judgment and potentially to transfer assets they were subject to the english judgment that said that the u s judgment is a forcible there and that's why you have that injunction it leaves in place all the traditional every enforcement of the american judgment if they don't say you can satisfy the judgment they don't they don't pretend to dictate to you how to satisfy their judg everyone bent over backwards not to do that's why we didn't authorize an injunction in the earlier appeal so i think we don't want to put you out of business and i think one of the difficulties  the united states in the united states assets those were left in place the only thing it was concerned about and the only thing and one of the reasons it's going to dissolve anyway but the only things concerned about was the reaching across into england and you may not collect that english judgment and if that's because with vi it's contrary to our prior judgment if that's permissible not opens up as laborers points out world war three on injunctions because then it's permissible for the english court to look at this court and say your