today in addition i want to remind everyone that these arguments are being broadcast to be a you tube recording by counsel is prohibited if arguing counsel or a judge drops from the call i will an by stopping the principal argument with time remaining on the clock and seeking leave of the court to reserve the remaining time time management is also counsel's responsibility we recommend that counsel time themselves so that argument can run smoothly if more than one attorney plans to argue for the same side please know that your arguments are not time separately and that at the st arguing attorney's responsibility to stop speaking in order to allow the nd attorney to speak for both the p twice every minute that counsel is over their time if the court announces a break at any time today counsel for the next case should be prepared for the court to resume at any moment and be prepared to argue counsel are there any questions you know judges are you ready to proceed we are yes i can hear you mr lauer can you hear me yes i can judge briscoe did you hear both counsel and can you hear me yes i can judge you val did you hear both counsel and can you hear me yes i can personal jurisdiction the only issue on appeal is specific jurisdiction and the test under bristol myers is that the specific claimant issue must arise from the foreign contacts here the only claim is for enforcement of the arbitral of work neither the parties nor the just record has suggested that she sees us contacts are relevant to the merits of some of his claim that should be the end of the matter because quote relevant to the merits is the exact test some say advocates on page twenty five dollars it's brief quoting this court's employers mutual case sensually simpson asks for a special exception to bristol myers for a claim to enforce an arbitration where you look at the claim in the arbitration itself rather than the queen being brought in the us court but there are no specialist special exceptions here there is one rule negotiations and agreements i note that there were no agreements formed in america all the agreements were formed abroad between the two income the mexican and bolivian entities so there's there's no suggestion that the actual agreements were u s agreements and of course they also libyan law and believe in our virtual proceedings to enforce disputes about the agreements but as far as the negotiations are concerned the question is did the negotiations in the united states actually give rise to the claim and here the cl and here the claim is for the arbiter of work and the merits of that claim do not depend on the negotiations but even if you disagreed and were to look at the underlying claim that is the claim for breach of contract that the arbitrator panel decided that the communications in the united states also were not the subject of that award that is they were at most background facts the vast majority of the negotiations and all of the communications relevant to the claim for preacher contracts occurred abroad none in the united states and it's telling that since it does not even attempt to argue that the connections that the communications in the united states were all but for cause of the claim and the reason is because the claim for breach of contract had to do with a right of st refusal and the right of st refusal to not actually go into effect until the offer was made by the rd party company the rd company that was proceedings on the merits of word itself though i should note that one of the questions still in play and terms of the proceedings on the damages of work is the meaning of the merits of words so one of the reasons that g c c argues that the damage of the work should the arbitration award was entered the arbitration was quote certified those are you words and quote the ability and courts where do we find that certification in the record and to the best of your ability could you tell us what the wording of that is to so that we can determine if that is a conditional arbitration or work so certification and i want to pursue that in terms of the finale of the award so i'm not sure exactly what were they us obviously because it's a foreign judicial proceeding then their specific language might be different then then we would use basically the way we were simply is that under article sixty three of their arbitration i think it would be bore help to just  thank you go ahead and proceed please thank you thank your honor moving back to jurisdiction again the question the question here is not were there contacts in the united states the question for those contacts in the united states relevant to the actual merits of the claim where they are but for cause of the claim and here there is no question that the claim would exist but for the u s contacts and the  all of the specific contacts themselves and the ones that they relied upon for their decision and none of those were the u s contacts that some supports forward in this court for this bill they tried to get bring a claim against g c c then the nd question would be is that is the word final and binding obviously our position is that it can't be brought anywhere at the moment but if in fact the libyan courts then certainly they could bring an in bolivia and potentially other places where you just excuse me his judgment you say that we cannot have the pursuit of this award of arbitration here because it is not a final judgment as to the merits of both the claim and the amount of the award then your convention says that the word must be quote binding and so the question is does that mean binding under the law  united states are binding under the laws of bolivia the country where the arbitration took place and the new york mentioned doesn't say it just says the word binding and the critical point here is that the executive branch has looked at this at the time that the tre was ratified and told the senate binding means binding under the law the arbiter of where the arbitration took place and here that is bolivia and it's undisputed that under believe you new law this award is not area like this where international comedy and cooperation are so important and there's absolutely nothing in the treaty that suggests something different from what the executive decided which is that binding should be under a law of the place where the arbitration took place and there's a very strong credential reason for that  in forcible as much as i agree that i mean i apologize and i consider it as you know i'm pursuing the collateral review issue as well and i still don't have an answer as to whether that so as far as whether means the same thing as as final i i think it depends on what we mean by final but enforceable i think is the correct word because in forcible the question is can you enforce it invalid in bolivia that is could actually bring a claim we want our money give it to us now in bolivia and it's undisputed that they cannot so that's really the ultimate question can be enforced it in the united states even though they can't enforce it in bolivia and it's very clear that the fact of french position is no the company had been farsi on the smirk until this essay refer to some some good morning made please the court let me st answer two of the questions that were raised with respect to certification the only certification by the panel is that a and twenty two where in connection with the final corrected damages decision the panel specifically certifies with respect to its final partial our patrol award on damages for purposes of the new the challenge in bolivia this was a final award for all purposes they say quote that they do not claim that since i had to go to the bolivian court to confirm effectively acknowledge that had been not made to challenge this even they would agree that this was final and binding for all purposes nd i must take issue with my colleague when he repeatedly says that it's undisputed on the bolivian law the fact is that the accurate and whether they also appear in the new arbitration will but whether as a result of this challenge there is in force ability and validity or not has nothing to do with their inability to prove the exception under new york convention article five there are two exceptions that they had the burden to try to prove one the award has not yet become binding on the part and noticed a change in the next phrase or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country and which are under the law of which bet awards was made the distinction is that whether something is binding as every case every case that we we and they cite several dozen cases every case essentially follows federated that it is final and binding if it is final within the context of the arbitration and therefore whether it is binding i tend in on local law but in keeping with try a practice only the court of the only the courts of the forum or the sea can set aside and that is the distinction here defendants are unable to cite a single case and we have found no case in which a an award was made final within the arbitral context which this is the one who is not binding or enforceable in the laws of the form which they say is the case in bolivia and she a us court has ruled that the award was therefore not binding for purposes of article five in the convention there is no case if you look at the dozens of cases that the two parties  there are a number where despite a challenge despite lack of in force ability in the local forum so long as it was final for the arbitrary context binding and enforceable within the new york convention compound question but what is the status of the proceedings before the th judge ordered and put in that order please thank you with respect to the merits award the proceedings on the merits award concluded the action by the president to by question then the the president of the paros court last decree that i referred to the final thing that appears of record on that i don't think that is an official part of the empower court but to the extent that we can rely and i'm not saying we can rely on the dating and filing of documents in bolivia  judge and as i understand the revoke the state against the th judge's ruling thereby appearing to reinstate the decision granting the so help me out of this but isn't that essentially a stay of the arbitration award no your honor let me let me explain this stuff to as been explained and that's why it took a day in the hearing for the district court there were two separate on paros i think of them as two separate silos one has nothing to do with the other prior to the paro that was brought by simpson challenging the  judge's ability to rule in the matter on while the bias claim was ongoing the constitutional court with respect to the g c c m paro revoked the decree that had brought  decision which had rejected the challenge to the award and the merits award became final later in what was what we refer to as the simpson power and the clarification order again judge's decision had already been revoked by the constitutional court put it another way she she sees decision would lead to absurd results it would run to constitutional review meaningless if regardless of the fact that the constitutional court revoked the remand order the th decision which still stand and as a district court held that she she she is expert was never able to explain how a post appellant you know that what the appellant is disputing is as he they claimed as a result of making the challenge in bolivia the award no longer was binding for purposes of the convention they do not dispute that prior to the challenge and this is on page twenty seven dollars of their reply they acknowledged that prior to making that challenge or had they never made that challenge they have to concede this was a final award because there was no further recourse within the our patrol context we have shown that a proper reading of the convention and almost all the courts that have addressed starting with fertilizer have made it clear that the fact that recourse may be had to a court of law does not prevent the award from binding if no further recourse to another arbitron tribunals and that's what we have here whether there are further arbitration proceedings available and it does not become one final because of other judicial talent in the host country that could occur exactly that is precisely the point and  multi faceted challenge to the damages award which is now been pending for several years and in accordance with article six of the convention she she she applied below for the courts to state  time i think they're sort of in limbo as the last that we were engage which goes back more than a year at the at the argument before the district court we were advised a final bolivian order saying that the arbiters award was wrong and should be reversed now somebody then tries to enforce that order in the united states court and then we have the current effort to enforce the arbitrator's award in the united states court do we have to inconsistent awards both of which have an equal right to be enforced in the united states how do we then result which won