s it is after state doctrine prohibits this court or any us court from declaring the twenty fifteen contract null and void one of our pieces of ecuador relief did seek to respect to the contract which is the contract ballot we're only asking here is did the private parties the defendants in this case violate statutory duties when they went about procuring the contract and that's exact same thing that happened  fishel government or government instrument isn't being named then there's not a question of their liability for the case in kirkpatrick the plaintiff stated that their damage was from a denial of their competitive opportunity front so i with the help of a london solicitor they actually had they baked in this twenty percent commission directly into the contract so the bride was paid with the contracts on the fines and there was there was a cover story for that's the it's very clear that the sherman act was intended to protect u s exporters when congress passed the foreign trade interest improvement act they directly contemplated this they they and they association where they specifically mention that how that the presidents of the major shareholders that's the defendants were directly involved that was at that time that was the defense predecessor companies  no one no one said explain how that would be the district court didn't do it defense haven't done it or for our monetary damages now it's the if you if you if you take the view that when we asked them to terminate the twenty thousand contract would like to reenter especially now with the new government ontario currently liberalizing the beer landscape which divide which you can't help but say we actually really care a lot less about injunctive relief given that you know the changes in the landscape there so the monetary relief would be  complex framework for how the government of ontario has chosen to distribute beer going back to prohibition took your club poem to suggest that the conspiracy was the one groaner and indeed certainly the matter below were was conduct of barack the six pack rule that came out of the for me there are allegations in the complaint about the years of negotiation process leading up to million and indeed distribute this is a comprehensive framework all of those discussions were part of the back and forth in the negotiation if this were a us law case we would say all of that conduct is protected by the north pennington don because you can jointly petition the government to take an action to competitors can say we don't like the third competitor but if they go and honestly petition that the government for a governmental action  competitor that's a human under our among our laws that conduct your honor it's all in the lead up to the formation agreement but all of the operative the facts that are being complained about certainly with respect to the they would profit to the exclusion of all other american competition that's the spirit she quoted dependent from the actual amount of official product that came out of to try to determine it's the motivations of the of the foreign sovereign of the justifications that's part of the political process the question was why did the mexican government provide an exclusive arrangement to one japanese company a factually similar i would just say to the argument a company is making and the courts are under the act of state doctrine it's not for us to get involved in that kind of car and that kind of action and i would distinguish your honor if it be possible for us to honor them for it in the eye of the ontario government's policy regarding some ice restrictions on beer sales that the formation agreement is a violation of section one because there is no liability without it i'll get to the relief i'm in a section but that goes right to what salt would say a determination that the contract that the government entered into inside of its own borders for conduct inside of its own borders would be a demeaning affront to that for i think the questions your honor was also asking earlier about relief i think the relief question agreements that ultimately prevent the un c b l from selling beer in twelve or twenty four x are offering any promotional  oxford not correct and this idea of or and this is the province of ontario deciding how beer will be sold inside of its own borders that with a number of social and and state thousand and actually decades earlier also changed the ownership i believe that there are four government appointees that serve on the board of directors that the our i this is in the twenty fifteen yard framework agree ontario can't be sold and if that's the case then every lower court decision that has applied the active state doctrine to excuse private parties is wrongly decided and i think that's very clear and very different comparing what happened in kirkpatrick with what happened in seabreeze all right kirkpatrick there was a bribe and the idea was the bribe was illegal under u s law but the underlying merits of the nigerian contract we're not we're not antibodies and there is no reason whatsoever to pierce the corporate veil to reach very far downstream in saying that your honor in no way do we think there is liability for the canadian affiliates but clearly the parent company who had no i have no further points of course i'd be happy to to respond to any questions